Jjriivfi-R'sirv 

Preys' 


1 


* 


LIBRARY 

OF  THK 


University  of  California. 

RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 

Class    rx  ^  k  ^> 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY   STUDIES   IN   ENGLISH 
Series  II.    Vol.  IV,  No.  i. 


GOVERNMENT    REGULATION 

OF    THE 

ELIZABETHAN    DRAMA 


This  Monograph  has  been  approved  by  the  Department  of  English 

in  Columbia  University  as  a  contribution  to  knowledge  worthy  of 

Publication. 

A.    H.    THORNDIKE, 

Secretary. 


GOVERNMENT  REGULATION 


OF  THE 


ELIZABETHAN    DRAMA 


BY 

VIRGINIA  CROCHERON   GILDERSLEEVE 


Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the  Requirements 

for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy,  in  the 

Faculty  of  Philosophy,  Columbia  University 


NEW    YORK 

1908 


• 


U  N  i  V  e  r. 


X" 


Copyright,  1908, 
By  THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  July,  1908. 


XortoooD  }3rrsa 

J.  3.  Cushlng  Co.  —Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

In  preparing  this  essay  I  have,  of  course,  obtained  many  sug- 
gestions from  the  well-known  works  of  Collier,  Fleay,  and  Ordish, 
and  especially  from  Mr.  Chambers'  admirable  Mediaeval  Stage 
and  Tudor  Revels,  which,  in  the  portion  of  my  field  that  they 
cover,  have  been  of  great  use  to  me.  So  far  as  possible,  I  have 
based  my  work  on  the  official  documents  of  the  time,  in  the  form 
in  which  they  appear  in  the  authoritative  governmental  collec- 
tions, such  as  the  Statutes  of  the  Realm  and  the  Acts  of  the  Privy 
Council.  But  in  many  instances,  of  course,  I  have  had  to  use 
transcripts  and  excerpts  made  by  independent  scholars. 

In  the  case  of  quotations  of  any  considerable  length,  I  have 
endeavored,  so  far  as  I  could,  to  reproduce  the  spelling  used  in 
my  source.  I  cannot  pretend,  however,  that  there  is  the  slight- 
est consistency  in  the  usage  found  in  my  various  documents ;  for 
the  methods  of  transcribers  vary  greatly,  —  ranging  from  Mr. 
Kelly's  apparently  exact  reproductions  of  the  Leicester  Records, 
showing  every  curl  and  abbreviation,  to  such  forms  as  some  of 
Collier's,  which  are  quite  modern  in  spelling  save  for  the 
interjection  of  an  occasional  final  e,  and  to  the  entirely  modern- 
ized versions,  such  as  Birch's  Charters.  From  the  point  of  view 
of  my  subject,  fortunately,  this  matter  is  of  small  importance. 

All  dates  I  have  expressed  in  the  new  style,  except  in  the  case 
of  direct  quotations.  In  these  few  instances  the  reader  should 
bear  in  mind  that  according  to  the  old  style  the  year  began  on 
March  25. 

I  desire  to  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to  Professor  William 
Allan  Neilson,  of  Harvard  University,  who  first  suggested  to  me 
an  investigation  into  some  of  the  social  conditions  surrounding 
the  theaters  of  Shakspere's  day,  and  to  the  inspiration  of  whose 
teaching  I  owe  much.  My  thanks  are  due  also  to  Professor 
William  W.  Lawrence,  of  Columbia  University,  for  suggestions, 


VI 

and  to  Professor  John  W.  Cunliffe,  of  the  University  of  Wiscon- 
sin, for  his  kindness  in  assisting  me  to  procure  some  material. 
I  am  chiefly  indebted,  however,  to  Professor  Ashley  H.  Thorn- 
dike,  of  Columbia  University,  who  has  aided  me  with  constant 
advice  and  kindly  encouragement,  and,  from  his  wide  and  minute 
knowledge  of  the  Elizabethan  drama,  has  contributed  to  my 
essay  many  valuable  suggestions. 

Columbia  University, 
March,  1908. 


CONTENTS 

PACE 

Introduction i 

CHAPTER 

I .    National  Regulation 4 

II.    The  Master  of  the  Revels 44 

III.  The  Nature  of  the  Censorship 89 

IV.  Local  Regulations  in  London,  1543-1592         .        .        .    137 
V.  Local  Regulations  in  London,  1 592-1 642         .        .        .178 

VI.    The  Puritan  Victory 215 

Appendix  —  Royal  Patents  to  Companies  of  Players    .        .231 

List  of  Books  Cited 235 

Index 241 


Vll 


UNIV 


GOVERNMENT    REGULATION    OF 
THE    ELIZABETHAN    DRAMA 

INTRODUCTION 

The  following  study  has  grown  out  of  an  investigation  into  the 
conditions  surrounding  the  Elizabethan  theaters  and  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  people  who  attended  them.  In  endeavoring 
to  secure  some  light  on  Shakspere's  audience,  I  was  led  to 
investigate  the  standing  of  players  and  playhouses  in  the  eyes 
of  the  law.  Since  the  facts  concerning  the  government  regula- 
tion of  the  drama  under  the  Tudors  and  the  early  Stuarts  have 
apparently  never  been  collected  in  complete  and  orderly  form,  — 
though  they  have  been  incidentally  treated  in  various  books, 
—  it  seemed  to  me  worth  while  to  attempt  an  account  of  the  laws 
and  regulations,  national  and  local,  which  affected  the  drama 
during  this  important  period  of  its  history. 

The  results  of  such  an  investigation  have  considerable  his- 
torical and  sociological  interest.  They  illustrate  the  political 
and  religious  controversies  following  the  Reformation,  when  the 
still  primitive  drama  was  a  dangerous  controversial  weapon. 
They  bring  us  into  touch  with  the  economic  and  social  unrest  in 
the  days  when  multitudes  of  "rogues,  vagabonds,  and  sturdy 
beggars"  roamed  through  the  country,  and  the  memorable  Poor 
Laws  of  Elizabeth  made  the  first  serious  attempt  to  grapple 
with  this  problem,  —  laws  which  mentioned  strolling  "players 
in  their  interludes"  among  many  other  varieties  of  "masterless" 
vagabonds.  We  see,  too,  the  economic  system  of  monopolies, 
so  widespread  under  Elizabeth  and  James,  applied  to  the  stage, 
in  the  granting  to  certain  favored  companies  of  players  royal 
patents  which  gave  them  practically  the  exclusive  right  to  per- 
form. From  the  point  of  view  of  constitutional  history  it  is 
interesting  to  note  the  development  of  the  Tudor  and  Stuart 
B  l 


despotism,  —  the  gradual  extension  of  royal  power  and  the 
overriding  of  the  rights  of  local  self-government ;  so  that  finally, 
instead  of  regulation  of  plays  by  municipal  and  shire  authorities, 
we  find  an  officer  of  the  King's  household,  the  Master  of  the 
King's  Revels,  endowed  with  absolute  licensing  power  over 
plays,  players,  and  playhouses  throughout  the  kingdom.  . 

Of  more  concrete  interest  is  the  long  controversy  over  plays 
in  London,  with  edicts  and  counter-edicts  from  the  royal  Coun- 
cil and  the  municipal  government.  In  miniature  we  see  here 
the  same  conflict  as  in  the  civil  war  which  was  soon  to  come,  — 
a  spirit  of  Puritanism  and  love  of  civil  liberty  encountering  the 
increasingly  autocratic  power  of  the  royal  government.  This 
long  controversy  over  the  stage  is  supposed  to  have  helped  in- 
flame the  Puritans  with  hatred  of  the  Court  and  of  royal  despot- 
ism. They  were  forced  to  subside  for  a  time,  to  submit  to  royal 
encroachment  upon  their  liberties;  but  in  1642  and  the  years 
that  followed  they  obtained  their  revenge  upon  players  and  Court 
alike. 

In  the  course  of  the  controversy  we  gain  also  an  interesting 
glimpse  of  the  illogical  irregularities  of  the  English  governmental 
system,  the  complicated  and  confused  organization  which  the 
government  of  London  had  gradually  developed,  with  its  uncer- 
tain jurisdiction,  its  privileged  persons  and  places,  its  laws  which 
might  or  might  not  be  enforced,  its  strange  relics  of  guild  rights 
and  ecclesiastical  exemptions. 

From  the  literary  point  of  view  such  a  study  of  laws  and  ordi- 
nances is  of  course  valuable  only  in  so  far  as  it  throws  light  on 
the  history  of  the  stage  during  this  golden  age.  Patents  and 
laws  regulating  the  licensing  of  plays  may  be  dull  reading  in 
themselves,  but  it  is  interesting  to  watch  the  pen  of  the  censor 
rigorously  expurgating  pages  of  the  plays  submitted  to  him,  and 
to  speculate  on  the  different  lines  the  drama  might  have  followed 
had  it  been  free  to  treat  all  subjects  at  will.  By  far  the  most 
striking  aspect  of  the  study,  however,  is  the  acquaintance  it  gives 
us  with  the  actual  conditions  surrounding  the  theaters  of  Shak- 
spere's  day,  when  the  Lord  Mayor  endeavored  to  suppress  them 
as  resorts  where  the  "basest  sort  of  people"  rioted  and  plotted 
"  most  ungodly  conspiracies,"  and  as  abominations  which  drew 


down  upon  the  city  the  wrath  of  God.  Through  the  maze  of 
conflicting  regulations  and  protesting  letters  one  can  catch  vivid 
glimpses  of  that  strange  audience  for  whom  Shakspere  wrote, 
—  ranging  from  the  noblemen  of  the  Essex  conspiracy,  who  met 
at  the  Globe,  including  the  brilliant  figure  of  the  young  Earl 
of  Southampton,  a  daily  frequenter  of  the  playhouses,  down  to 
the  rabble  of  apprentices,  vagabonds,  and  cutpurses  who  rioted 
in  the  pit,  to  the  scandal  of  all  peaceful  citizens. 

In  the  essay  which  follows  I  have  partially  abandoned  the 
usual  chronological  plan,  in  order  to  obtain  a  clearer  and  more 
unified  view  of  the  development  of  the  different  aspects  of  legis- 
lation and  regulation.     I  shall  deal  first  with  the  general  regu- 
lation of  the  drama  by  the  central  government,  through  parlia- 
mentary   statutes,    royal    proclamations,   council    orders,  and 
patents,  applying  to  the  country  at  large.     This  includes  the 
laws  and  patents  concerning  the  status  of  players  and  the  licens- 
ing of  them,  the  licensing  of  playhouses,  and,  in  general  outline, 
the  development  of  the  power  of  censorship.     The  succeeding 
section  traces  the  rise  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels  from  mere 
manager  of  court  entertainments  to  regulator  of  the  drama 
throughout  the  kingdom,  the  growth  and  exercise  of  his  very 
extensive  powers  of  licensing  players,  playhouses,  and  plays. 
Following  this  is  a  fairly  minute  study  of  the  nature  of  that  cen- 
sorship of  which  the  Master  was  the  official  administrator,  as  it 
appears  in  the  expurgations  he  made,  and  in  the  cases  when 
players  or  playwrights  were  disciplined  for  indiscretions.     The 
next  two  chapters  give  a  somewhat  detailed  account  of  the  local 
regulations  in  London,  especially  of  the  long  and  bitter  strife 
between  a  municipal  government  trying  to  keep  plays  out  of  the 
city  and  royal  authority  endeavoring  to  have  them  admitted. 
With  details  of  dramatic  regulation  in  other  parts  of  England 
I  have  not  attempted  to  deal.     The  period  is  finally  and  defi- 
nitely closed  by  the  victory  of  the  Puritan  movement.     This  had 
caused  bitter  attacks  on  the  stage  during  most  of  the  Elizabethan 
era,  and  it  culminated  at  last  in  the  Ordinances  of  the  Long 
Parliament  in  1642,  1647,  and  1648,  prohibiting  all  theatrical 
performances  whatsoever. 


CHAPTER    I 
National  Regulation 

Before  investigating  the  more  interesting  details  of  adminis- 
trative history  in  London  during  the  golden  years  of  the  Eliza- 
bethan age,  it  is  essential  to  survey  the  general  regulation  of  the 
drama  by  the  national  government  throughout  our  period,  until 
1642;  that  is,  to  consider  such  statutes,  orders,  proclamations, 
and  patents  as  emanated  from  royal  and  parliamentary  authority 
and  applied  to  the  kingdom  at  large.  It  is  convenient  to  con- 
sider such  legislation  under  three  general  heads,  as  it  concerned 
itself  with  the  licensing  of  plays,  the  licensing  of  players,  or  the 
licensing  of  playing  places.  The  licensing  of  plays  was  the 
first  to  receive  serious  consideration  from  the  government,  and 
may  conveniently  be  treated  first. 

The  licensing  of  plays  evidently  involved  two  questions,  — 
when  they  should  be  allowed,  and  what  they  should  contain. 
Sometimes  they  were  suppressed  altogether;  sometimes  merely 
their  content  was  restricted, — they  were  censored.  The 
exercise  of  the  censorship  in  London  under  Elizabeth  and  the 
early  Stuarts  will  be  treated  in  detail  in  a  later  chapter.  We 
have  here  to  consider  the  general  history  of  the  censoring  power 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Tudor  period  until  the  Civil  War. 

When  Henry  VII  ascended  the  throne  in  1485,  the  drama 
was  already  flourishing  in  England.  Mysteries  were  being 
performed  in  many  towns  and  parishes,  and  moralities  were 
common.  Noblemen  kept  among  their  retainers  companies 
of  professional  players,  and  the  King  himself  had  a  company 
in  his  household.1  But  in  spite  of  all  this  dramatic  activity, 
apparently  no  necessity  for  governmental  censorship  was  yet 
felt.     The  regulation  of  plays  seems  to  have  been  attended  to 

1  Sec  below,  pp.  22-23. 
I 


satisfactorily  enough  by  the  local  civil  and  ecclesiastical  authori- 
ties. Not  until  the  troubles  of  the  Reformation  and  the  policies 
of  Henry  VIII  began  to  arouse  a  spirit  of  revolt  among  the 
people,  did  the  royal  government  feel  that  there  was  anything  to 
fear  from  the  content  of  plays.  Then  it  became  evident  that 
the  religious  nature  of  the  drama  at  this  time,  coupled  with 
the  religious  nature  of  the  questions  in  dispute,  made  the  stage 
a  peculiarly  dangerous  weapon. 

According  to  most  stage  historians,  a  proclamation  in  1533  V 
attempted  to  regulate  the  content  of  plays.  It  forbade,  we  are 
told,  all  evil-disposed  persons  to  preach,  either  in  public  or  pri- 
vate, "after  their  own  brains,  and  by  playing  of  interludes  and 
printing  of  false,  fond  books,  ballads,  rhymes,  and  other  lewd 
treatises  in  the  English  tongue,  concerning  doctrines  in  matters 
now  in  question  and  controversy."  .  Were  this  authentic,  it 
would  be  the  earliest  formal  pronouncement  concerning  censor- 
ship. But  no  such  edicl  was  issued  in  1533.  This  proclama- 
tion, as  may  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  the  phrasing,  was  that 
promulgated  by  Queen  Mary  on  August  18,  1553.1  Warton, 
in  his  History  of  English  Poetry,2  by  a  slip,  mentioned  the 
document  as  having  been  issued  in  1533,  describing  it  as  I  have 
quoted  above  and  citing  Foxe's  Martyrologie  as  his  authority. 
But  Foxe  mentions  no  such  edict  in  1533.  He  does,  however, 
on  the  page  referred  to  by  Warton,3  give  at  length  Mary's  proc- 
lamation of  1553.  Historians  of  the  stage,  following  Warton's 
statement,  have  continued  this  error.4 

Though  no  formal  censoring  regulation  of  this  sort  was  made 
at  this  early  date,  the  drama  was  already  being  used  for  con- 
troversial purposes.  Even  in  1526  Wolsey  had  felt  obliged  to 
defend  himself  against  the  political  attacks  of  a  play  at  Gray's 
Inn,  John  Roo's  morality  of  Lord  Govemaunce  and  Lady 
Publike-Wele.5  In  the  religious  controversy  it  is  interesting  to 
note  how,  under  royal  sanction,  the  stage  was  being  employed 
as  a  weapon  on  both  sides,  as  the  policy  of  the  Crown  changed. 

1  See  below,  p.  10. 

5  1824  edition,  III,  428. 

3  Martyrologie  (1576  edition),  1339. 

*  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  119;  Chambers,  Mediaeval  Stage,  II,  220. 

*  Chambers,  op.  cit.,  II,  192,  219. 


6 

The  royal  Defender  of  the  Faith  smiled  at  first  on  dramas  in 
support  of  the  Papacy.  In  1527  there  is  record  of  a  play  by 
the  St.  Paul's  boys  before  ambassadors  from  France,  on  the 
captivity  of  the  Pope,  in  which  the  "herretyke  Lewtar"  was  a 
character;  and  in  1528  comedies  were  acted  before  Wolsey 
on  the  release  of  the  Pope,  —  also  orthodox,  no  doubt.1  But  in 
1533,  the  year  of  Henry's  marriage  to  Anne  Boleyn,  we  note 
a  change.  A  comedy  was  acted  at  Court  in  that  year  "to  the 
no  little  defamation  of  certain  cardinals";2  and  in  1537  much 
offense  was  given  to  Bishop  Gardiner,  the  Chancellor  of  Cam- 
bridge University,  by  the  performance  at  Christ's  College  of 
a  "tragedie,"  part  of  which  was  "soo  pestiferous  as  were  in- 
tolerable"—  no  less  a  play  than  the  famous  anti-papal  Pam- 
machius  itself.3  The  high  officials  of  church  and  state  now  seem 
to  have  encouraged  the  use  of  interludes  to  spread  the  Protes- 
tant doctrine.  There  is  evidence  that  Cromwell,  especially, 
found  the  stage  a  convenient  weapon  in  the  Protestant  cause;4 
and  Cranmer  was  apparently  in  sympathy  with  this  policy,  for 
in  1539  there  was  an  interlude  at  his  house  which  a  Protestant 
described  as  "one  of  the  best  matiers  that  ever  he  sawe  touching 
King  John,"  and  which  may  have  been  John  Bale's  famous  play.5 
When  thus  used  to  support  views  favored  by  the  Crown,  the 
controversial  drama  was  graciously  approved.  But  as  the  spirit 
of  revolt  spread  through  the  country,  the  government  discovered 
that  plays  could  be  used  also  as  a  weapon  of  attack  by  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  royal  policy.  In  1537  it  was  found  necessary  to 
prohibit  games  and  unlawful  assemblies  in  Suffolk,  on  account 
of  a  "seditious  May-game,"  which  was  "of  a  king,  how  he  should 
rule  his  realm,"  and  in  which  "one  played  Husbandry,  and  said 
many  things  against  gentlemen  more  than  was  in  the  book  of 
the  play."  8  A  more  serious  case  of  seditious  use  of  the  drama 
occurred  in  York  about  the  same  time  (the  exact  date  is  unknown). 
We  learn  of  it  from  a  letter  written  by  Henry  VIII  to  some  Jus- 
tice of  the  Peace  in  York,7  regarding  the  "late  evil  and  seditious 

'Chambers,  Mediaval  Stage,  II,  2x9-220.  '  Ibid.,  II,  220.  s  Ibid. 

*  Ibid.        » Ibid.,  221.       c  Letters  and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII,  XII,  557,  585. 
7  Printed   in   a  translation   from   the  original   Latin   in   Halliwell-Phillipps, 
Letters  0/  the  Kings  0/  England,  I,  354. 


rising"  in  that  city  at  the  performance  of  a  "  religious  interlude 
of  St.  Thomas  the  Apostle."  The  King  has  been  informed  that 
the  disorder  was  due  to  the  seditious  conduct  of  certain  papists 
who  took  part  in  preparing  for  the  interlude,  and  he  exhorts 
the  Justice  to  prevent  any  such  commotion  in  future,  and  gives 
him  authority  to  arrest  and  imprison  "any  papists  who  shall,  in 
performing  interludes  which  are  founded  on  any  portions  of  the 
Old  or  New  Testament,  say  or  make  use  of  any  language  which 
may  tend  to  excite  those  who  are  beholding  the  same  to  any 
breach  of  the  peace." 

The  passage,  in  1539,  of  the  Act  abolishing  Diversity  in 
Opinions,  which  reasserted  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation, 
communion  in  one  kind,  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  monastic 
vows,  private  masses,  and  auricular  confession,  marked  Henry's 
reaction  against  Protestantism,  and  was  followed  by  persecution 
of  the  unorthodox.  One  Spencer,  an  ex-priest  who  had  become 
an  interlude-player,  was  burned  at  Salisbury  for  "matter  con- 
cerning the  sacrament  of  the  altar";1  and  in  London  a  man 
was  "  presented  for  procuring  an  interlude  to  be  openly  played, 
wherein  priests  were  railed  on  and  called  knaves."  2 

Such  cases  as  these  led  to  the  first  legislation  concerning  the 
content  of  plays,  —  an  important  step  in  the  history  of  govern- 
mental censorship. (This  was  the  Statute  34  and  35  Henry 
VIII,  cap.  1,  passea  in  1543,  and  entitled  "An  act  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  true  religion  and  for  the  abolishment  of  the  con- 
trary." 3  With  the  drama  it  deals  only  incidentally.  It  con- 
demns Tyndale's  translation  of  the  Bible  and  other  unorthodox 
writings,  and  orders  the  suppression  of  anything  conflicting  with 
the  doctrines  authorized  by  the  King.  Seditious  people,  the  act 
states,  have  tried  to  subvert  the  true  doctrine  not  only  by  sermons, 
"but  allso  by  prynted  bokes,  prynted^balades,  jplayes,  rymes, 
songes,  and  other  fantasies."  Any  of  these  conflicting  with  the 
authorized  religion  are  to  be  "abolished,  extinguished,  and  for- 
bidden." j  But  the  act  shows  no  trace  of  the  later  Puritan  dis- 
approvatof  plays  as  such ;  seditious  matter  in  them  it  condemns, 
but  their  use  for  proper  ends  it  expressly  approves.  (  It  provides 

1  Chambers,  Medieval  Stage,  II,  221.  *  Ibid. 

3  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  III,  894. 


8 

that  "it  shalbe  lawfull  to  all  and  everye  prsone  and  prsones,  to 
sette  foorth  songes,  plaies  and  enterludes,  to  be  used  and  exer- 
cysed  within  this  Realme  and  other  the  kinges  Domynions,  for 
the  rebuking  and  reproching  of  vices  and  the  setting  foorth  of 
vertue :  so  allwaies  the  saide  songes,  playes  or  enterludes  med- 
dle not  with  interpretacions  of  Scripture,  contrarye  to  the  doc- 
tryne  set  foorth  or  to  be  sett  foorth  by  the  Kinges  Majestic '} 

Any  one  accused  of  spreading  unorthodox  views  in  such  ways 
is  to  be  tried  before  any  two  of  the  King's  Council  or  the  Ordi- 
nary of  the  diocese  (i.e.  the  bishop  sitting  in  ecclesiastical  court), 
and  two  Justices  of  the  Peace  of  the  same  shire  where  the  Or- 
dinary sits,  or  before  any  other  person  especially  appointed  for 
the  purpose.  Such  censorship  as  there  was,  was  therefore  in 
the  hands  of  these  officials. 

With  the  accession  of  Edward  VI,  in  1547,  royal  approval 
turned  again  to  extreme  Protestantism.  But  during  this  reign 
there  was,  nevertheless,  much  difficulty  in  keeping  plays  within 
proper  bounds.  We  find  at  the  very  outset  that  the  actors  were 
not  held  in  good  discipline.  On  February  5,  1547,  the  Bishop 
of  Winchester  wrote  to  the  Lord  Protector,  requesting  his  inter- 
ference to  thwart  the  Southwark  players'  project  for  a  "solemn 
play"  during  his  memorial  services  for  the  late  King,  "to  trye 
who  shall  have  most  resorte,  they  in  game,  or  I  in  ernest."  x 
Protestant  dramas  were  now  written  and  encouraged  by  those 
high  in  authority.  Edward  VI,  according  to  Bale,  wrote  a 
comedy  De  Meretrice  Babylonica,  John  Foxe,  the  martyrologist, 
a  Christus  Triumphans,  and  Bale  himself  was  of  course  the 
chief  Protestant  writer  of  controversial  plays.2  In  1551  the 
English  comedies  "in  demonstration  of  contempt  for  the  Pope" 
were  reported  by  the  Venetian  Ambassador  to  his  government.3 
-  It  was  now  the  Catholic  interludes  which  needed  suppression ; 
and  so  serious  was  the  danger  of  sedition  from  this  source,  that 
on  August  6,  1549,  there  was  issued  a  royal  proclamation  pro- 
hibiting English  plays  altogether  for  the  next  three  months. 
"For  asmuche  as  a  greate  number  of  those  that  be  common 

1  Stale  Papers,  Dom.,  1547-1580,  1. 

2  For  details,  sec  Chambers,  op.  cit.,  II,  217-218,  223-224. 
'  Ibid.,  II,  222-223. 


9 

Plaicrs  of  Enterludes  and  Plaics,"  the  edict  recites,  "as  well 
within  the  citie  of  London,  as  els  where  within  the  realme,  do 
for  the  moste  pari  plaie  suche  Interludes'  as  contain  matter 
tendyng  to  sedicion  and  contempnyng  of  sundcry  good  orders 
and  lawes,  where  upon  are  growen,  and  daily  are  like  to  growe 
and  ensue,  muche  disquiet,  division,  tumultes,  and  uproares  in 
this  realme;  the  Kynges  Maiestie  .  .  .  straightly  chargeth  and 
commaundeth  al  and  every  his  Maiesties  subjectes  .  .  .  that 
from  the  ix  day  of  this  present  moneth  of  August  untill  the  feast 
of  all  Sainctes  ncxte  comming,  thei  ne  any  of  them,  openly  or 
secretly  plaie  in  the  English  tongue  any  kynde  of  Interlude, 
Plaie,  Dialogue  or  other  matter  set  furthe  in  forme  of  Plaie  in 
any  place  publique  or  private  within  this  realme,  upon  pain  that 
whosoever  shall  plaie  in  Englishe  any  such  Play,  Interlude,  or 
other  matter,  shall  suffre  imprisonment,  and  further  punishment 
at  the  pleasure  of  his  Maiestie."  !  — " 

The  Act  of  Uniformity,  passed  by  Parliament  in  the  same 
year,  1549  (2  and  3  Edward  VI,  cap.  1),  forbade  interludes  con- 
taining anything  ''depraving  and  despising"  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer.2 

Serious  trouble  with  the  drama  evidently  continued,  for  on 
April  28,  1 55 1,  another  royal  proclamation  dealt  with  plays,  and 
made  the  first  attempt  to  establish  a  definite  system  of  censor- 
ship. The  avowed  purpose  of  the  edict  is  the  "reformacion 
of  Vagabondes,  tellers  of  newes,  sowers  of  seditious  rumours, 
players,  and  printers  without  license  &  divers  other  disordred 
persons."  It  inveighs  at  length  against  sedition,  unfaithfulness 
to  the  true  religion,  and  lawbrcaking,  and  commands  magis- 
trates to  enforce  the  statutes.  Devisers  of  rumors  and  tales 
touching  his  Majesty  are  to  be  punished.  No  one  is  to  print, 
sell,  or  distribute  anything  in  English  without  the  written  per- 
mission of  the  King  or  the  Privy  Council,  on  pain  of  imprison- 
ment and  fine.  Finally,  a  regulation  similar  to  this  one 
concerning  the  licensing  of  printing,  is  made  concerning  the  cen- 
soring of  plays :  V  Xor  that  any  common  players  or  other  persons, 
vpon  like  paines,  to  play  in  thenglish  tong,  any  maner  Enter- 
lude,  play  or  mattre,  without  they  have  special  licence  to  shew 

1  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  8.  2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  IV,  pt.  i,  38. 


10 

for  the  same  in  writing  vnder  his  maiesties  signe,  or  signed  by 
.vi.  of  his  highnes  priuie  counsaill."  '  J 

It  was  impossible,  of  course,  for  the  Privy  Council  to  exercise 
this  censorship  with  any  thoroughness  throughout  the  kingdom ; 
but  in  some  cases  they  certainly  acted.  In  June,  1551,  for  ex- 
ample, the  Council  apparently  considered  that  even  noblemen's 
players  should  not  perform  before  their  masters  without  special 
leave,  for  they  granted  the  Marquis  of  Dorset  permission  to 
have  his  players  play  "only  in  his  lordship's  presence."  2  And 
in  June,  1552,  it  appears  that  they  had  ordered  a  "cowper" 
shut  up  in  the  Tower  "for  the  making  of  plays."  3 

With  Mary's  accession,  in  1553,  the  pendulum  swung  again. 
At  the  very  commencement  of  her  reign  a  morality  called  Res- 
publica  was  represented  at  Court,  which  was  bitterly  anti-Protes- 
tant in  sentiment,  and  introduced  the  Queen  herself  in  the  char- 
acter of  Nemesis.4  On  the  occasion,  also,  of  her  marriage  with 
Philip,  there  were  Catholic  interludes  and  pageants.5  Her 
realization  of  the  danger  from  the  use  of  the  same  weapon  by 
her  enemies  to  stir  up  Protestant  revolt  is  shown  in  the  long  and 
interesting  proclamation  of  August  18,  1553.6  This  declares 
that  the  Queen  favors  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine,  but  that 
she  will  not  at  present  compel  her  subjects  to  accept  it.  She 
commands  them,  however,  not  to  stir  up  any  sedition  or  any 
disputes  about  these  matters.  Among  methods  of  arousing 
revolt  printing  and  playing  again  appear  prominently. 

"  And  furthermore,  forasmuche  also  as  it  is  well  knowen,  that  sedi- 
tion and  false  rumours  haue  bene  nouryshed  and  maynteyned  in  this 
realme,  by  the  subteltye  and  malyce  of  some  euell  disposed  persons,  whiche 
take  vpon  them  withoute  sufficient  auctoritie,  to  preache,  and  to  inter- 
prete  the  worde  of  God,  after  theyr  owne  brayne,  in  churches  and  other 
places,  both  publique  and  pryuate.  And  also  by  playinge  of  Inter- 
ludes and  pryntynge  false  fonde  bookes,  ballettes,  rymes,  and  other  lewde 
treatises  in  the  englyshe  tonge,  concernynge  doctryne  in  matters  now  in 
question  and  controuersye,  touchinge  the   hyghe   poyntes  and  misteries 

1  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  O-14. 

2  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  III,  307.  s  Ibid.,  IV,  73. 

*  Printed  in  Brandl,  Quellen  des  weltlkhen  Dramas  in  England. 
1  Chambers,  Mediaeval  Stage,  II,  223. 

•  Printed  in  full  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  15-18. 


11 

of  christen  religion.  .  .  .  Her  highnes  therfore  strayghtly  chargeth  and 
commaundeth  all  and  every  her  sayde  subiectes  .  .  .  that  none  of  them 
presume  from  henceforth  to  preache  .  .  .  or  to  interprete  or  teache  any 
scriptures,  or  any  maner  poyntes  of  doctryne  concernynge  religion. 
Neythcr  also  to  prynte  any  bookes,  matter,  ballet,  ryme,  interlude, 
processe  or  treatyse,  nor  to  playe  any  interlude,  except  they  haue  her 
graces  speciall  licence  in  writynge  for  the  same,  vpon  payne  to  incurre 
her  highnesse  indignation  and  displeasure." 


In  this  provision  for  royal  license  and  censorship  no  express 
mention  is  made,  as  in  Edward's  proclamation  of  1551,  of  the 
license  by  six  of  the  Privy  Council  as  alternative  to  the  royal 
permission.  But  it  was  evidently  through  the  Council  that  the 
royal  authority  was  exercised.  In  spite  of  the  proclamation, 
troubles  with  plays  were  frequent,  and  we  find  the  Council  vigi- 
lantly interfering  in  various  parts  of  the  country.  In  1556  and 
1557  the  difficulties  seem  to  have  grown  acute.  On  February 
14,  1556,  the  Privy  Council  ordered  Lord  Rich,  the  Lord  Lieu- 
tenant of  Essex,  to  stop  and  investigate  a  play  about  to  be  given 
in  that  county,  and  report  to  the  Council.1  In  the  following 
April  they  directed  the  Lord  President  of  the  North  to  suppress 
a  company  of  players  who  had  "wandered  abowt  the  North 
partes,  and  represented  certaine  playes  and  enterludes,  conteyn- 
ing  very  naughty  and  seditious  matter  touching  the  King  and 
Quene's  Mau  and  the  state  of  the  realme,  and  to  the  slaunder 
of  Christe's  true  and  Catholik  religion,  contrary  to  all  good  ordre, 
and  to  the  manifest  contempt  of  Allmighty  God,  and  daungerous 
example  of  others."  The  Council  directed  the  Lord  President 
of  the  North  to  give  orders  to  all  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  within 
his  rule  that  "they  doo  in  no  wyse  suffer  any  playes,  enterludes, 
songues,  or  any  suche  lyke  pastymes  whereby  the  people  may 
any  wayes  be  steryd  to  disordre,  to  be  used  by  any  manner 
p'sonnes,  or  under  any  coulour  or  pretence."  2  It  is  evident  from 
this  that,  in  spite  of  the  proclamation  limiting  the  licensing 
power  to  the  Crown,  the  actual  exercise  of  censorship,  the  re- 
sponsibility of  determining  whether  any  play  contained  seditious 


1  Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  V,  234,  237. 

1  Letter  printed  in  Lodge,  Illustrations,  I,  212-213. 


12 

or  heretical  matter,  rested  with  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  and 
other  local  officials. 

In  May  there  is  another  mention  of  an  order  "against  players 
and  pipers  strolling  through  the  kingdom,  disseminating  sedition 
and  heresies."  l  In  June  of  the  following  year,  1557,  the  Council 
ordered  the  Mayor  of  London  to  arrest  players  who  had  been 
giving  "naughty  plays,"  and  to  permit  no  play  henceforth  within 
the  City  "except  the  same  be  first  seen  and  allowed"  2  —  pre- 
sumably by  the  municipal  officials.  In  the  same  month  the 
Mayor  of  Canterbury  arrested  some  actors  and  sent  their  "lewd 
play-book"  to  the  Council  for  its  consideration.3  The  boldness 
of  the  players  apparently  became  so  great  that  the  Council  de- 
cided to  forbid  all  plays  during  the  summer.  Orders  to  this 
effect  were  sent  to  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  of  every  shire,4 
but  the  enforcement  of  the  rule  was  difficult.  The  Council 
reprimanded  the  Justices  of  Essex,  because  of  their  laxness  in 
this  duty ; 5  in  September  it  directed  the  Mayor  of  London  to 
prevent  the  performance  of  another  "lewd  play,"  called  a 
"Sacke  full  of  Newes,"  at  the  Boar's  Head  without  Aldgate,  to 
arrest  the  players,  and  to  send  their  playbook  to  the  Council.6 
On  due  consideration  the  Lords  evidently  decided  that  the 
"  Sacke  full  of  Newes"  was  harmless,  for  the  next  day  they  bade 
the  Mayor  release  the  players.7 

At  the  same  time  they  directed  him  to  charge  the  actors 
throughout  the  city  "not  to  play  any  plays,  but  between  the 
feasts  of  All  Saints  8  and  Shrovetide,  and  then  only  such  as  are 
seen  and  allowed  by  the  Ordinary," 9  —that  is,  by  the  Bishop  of 
London  sitting  in  ecclesiastical  court.  This  appears  to  be  the 
first  formal  delegation  by  the  Crown  and  Privy  Council  of  the 
power  of  licensing  plays,  though,  as  we  have  seen,  in  practice 
such  power  had  been  exercised  before  by  local  officials.  In 
view  of  the  religious  nature  of  the  plays  and  of  the  matters  in 
dispute,  it  was  natural  that  the  Bishop  should  be  chosen  for  this 
duty  in  London.     As  we  have  found,  the  Ordinary  had  before 

1  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1547-1580,  82. 

2  Acts,  VI,  102.  5  Ibid.,  119.  8  November  1. 

3  Ibid.,  no,  148.  6  Ibid.,  168.  9Acts,  VI,  169. 
*Ibid.,  118-119.                   7  Ibid.,  169. 


13 

this  possessed  a  somewhat  similar  jurisdiction.1  Concerning 
the  Bishop  of  London's  administration  of  this  power,  we  have 
no  definite  information.  In  later  years,  as  we  shall  see,  he  and 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  sometimes  interfered  again  in 
dramatic  affairs  in  London. 

In  tracing  the  history  of  the  censorship  we  have  now  reached 
the  opening  of  Elizabeth's  reign.  Hitherto,  as  we  have  seen, 
such  scanty  and  vague  legislation  as  there  was  concerning  the 
licensing  of  plays  had  reserved  this  power  to  the  Crown  and  the 
Priw  Council,  except  for  some  authority  granted  to  the  Ordinary. 
In  practice,  however,  it  is  evident  that  the  Council  did  not  ex- 
pect this  rule  to  be  followed.  It  was  obviously  impossible  for 
them  to  overlook  beforehand  and  license  plays  throughout  the 
kingdom.  There  was  no  definite  system  of  licensing,  but  they 
apparently  expected  the  local  officials,  —  the  Lord  Lieutenants 
and  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  shires,  and  in  the  towns  the 
Mayors.  —  to  exercise  supervision.  The  Council  reserved,  of 
course,  supreme  authority,  and  in  cases  of  flagrant  impropriety 
they  interfered,  through  the  local  officials,  and  sometimes  called 
for  the  book  of  the  play,  to  see  how  serious  the  matter  was. 
We  shall  find  that  during  the  early  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign 
practically  the  same  system  was  in  force,  though  it  was  now 
formulated  more  definitely. 

In  summing  up  this  early  period  we  should  notice  also  that 
the  censorship  and  licensing  apparently  applied  to  both  public 
and  private  performances;  that  it  sometimes,  however,  dealt 
only  with  those  in  English,  not  with  Latin  plays ;  and  that  the 
censoring  was  concerned  with  suppressing  sedition  and  heresy, 
—  anything  likely  to  stir  up  political  revolt,  —  and  not  with 
matters  of  decency  and  morality. 

The  opening  of  Elizabeth's  reign  reveals  a  situation  in  the 
dramatic  world  not  unlike  that  which  confronted  her  prede- 
cessors. Moderate  Protestantism  was  now  again  in  the  ascen- 
dant, and  steps  were  taken  to  prevent  danger  of  sedition  from 
Catholic  or  other  unorthodox  plays.  The  Act  of  Uniformity, 
in  1559  (1  Elizabeth,  cap.  2),  reenacted  the  provision  of  2  and  3 
Edward  VI,  cap.  1,  against  "depraving  or  despising"  the  Book 

1  See  above,  p.  8. 


14 

of  Common  Prayer  in  interludes.1  In  April,  1559,  Elizabeth 
found  it  necessary  to  adopt  the  precaution  used  at  times  by  her 
predecessors,  —  that  of  prohibiting  plays  altogether  for  a  season. 
As  in  the  past,  it  was  felt  that  summer  was  the  time  of  greatest 
danger  from  the  controversial  drama.  This  first  proclamation 
of  Elizabeth  therefore  inhibited  all  plays  and  interludes  until 
the  following  November.  So,  at  least,  Holinshed  informs  us, 
and  he  refers  to  this  proclamation  as  having  been  issued  "at  the 
same  time"  as  another  which  he  has  just  been  telling  us  was 
made  on  April  7.2  As  we  find  no  other  reference  to  this  April 
proclamation  on  the  drama,  and  as  Holinshed  does  not  mention 
Elizabeth's  second  edict  on  the  subject,  in  the  following  month, 
it  may  be  that  he  is  here  referring  rather  inaccurately  to  this 
edict  of  May  16,  generally  called  by  stage  historians  Elizabeth's 
second  proclamation  concerning  plays. 

It  is  certain,  at  all  events,  that  on  May  16,  1559,  the  Queen 
issued  an  important  proclamation  3  which  explicitly  established 
a  more  definite  system  of  licensing  plays  than  had  previously 
existed,  though  it  was  really  little  more  than  a  codification  of 
the  practice  hitherto  in  use,  —  supervision  by  the  municipal 
officers  in  towns  and  by  Lord  Lieutenants  and  Justices  of  the 
Peace  in  shires.  "Forasmuche  as  the  tyme  wherein  common 
Interludes  in  the  Englishe  tongue  are  wont  vsually  to  be  played, 
is  now  past  vntyll  All  Halloutyde,"  the  proclamation  recites, 
"and  that  also  some  that  haue  ben  of  late  vsed,  are  not  conuen- 
ient  in  any  good  ordred  Christian  Common  weale  to  be  suft'red. 
The  Quenes  Maiestie  doth  straightly  forbyd  al  maner  Interludes 
to  be  playde,  eyther  openly  or  priuately,  except  the  same  be 
noticed  before  hande,  and  licenced  within  any  citie  or  towne 
corporate  by  the  Maior  or  other  chiefe  officers  of  the  same,  and 
within  any  shyre,  by  suche  as  shalbe  Lieuetenaunts  for  the 
Queenes  Maiestie  in  the  same  shyre,  or  by  two  of  the  Justices 
of  peax  inhabyting  within  that  part  of  the  shire  where  any  shalbe 
played." 
»  Then  follow  instructions  to  guide  the  officials  in  their  censoring, 

1  Statutes,  IV,  pt.  i,  356.     And  see  above,  p.  9. 

2  Holinshed,  Chronicles  (1586-1587  edition),  III,  1184. 

3  Printed  in  full  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  19-20. 


15 

and  these  show  in  an  interesting  way  the  establishment  of  the 
conciliatory  policy  followed,  in  the  main,  during  all  of  Eliza- 
beth's reign,  —  that  of  removing  the  drama  altogether  from  the 
field  of  political  and  religious  controversy.  "And  for  instruc- 
tion to  cucry  of  the  sayde  officers,  her  maiestie  doth  likewise 
charge  euery  of  them  as  they  will  aunswere  :(that  they  permyt 
none  to  be  played,  wherin  either  matters  of  religion  or  of  the 
governance  of  the  estate  of  the  commo  weale  shalbe  handled, 
or  treated;  beyng  no  meete  matters  to  be  wrytten  or  treated 
vpon,  but  by  menne  of  aucthoritie,  learning,  and  wisedome, 
nor  to  be  handled  before  any  audience  but  of  graue  and  dis- 
creete  persons.  '1 

If  any  shalfat  tempt  to  disobey  this  edict,  the  officials  are 
ordered  to  arrest  and  imprison  the  persons  so  offending  for 
fourteen  days  or  more,  as  the  case  shall  warrant,  and  until 
they  give  surety  that  they  will  be  of  good  behavior  in  the  future. 

This  system  of  censorship  by  local  authorities  continued  in 
force  undisputed  for  some  fifteen  years,  nor  was  it,  indeed,  ever 
entirely  superseded.  We  should  not  imagine,  however,  that  it 
was  ever  very  rigorously  carried  out,  and  that  every  play  was 
carefully  "seen  and  allowed"  before  presentation.  There 
must  have  been  great  laxness  in  the  administration.  Royal  / 
authority  was  still,  of  course,  supreme,  ancL_directly  or  through 
the  Prrry^ouncilT^rrntervened  at  will  to  permit  favored  plays 
or  to  suppress  and  punish  peculiarly  flagrant  impropriety  in 
dramatic  handling  of  political  affairs. 

An  example  of  the  working  of  the  system  is  to  be  seen  in  a 
letter  of  June,  1559,  to  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury,  Lord  President 
of  the  North,  from  Sir  Robert  Dudley,  afterwards  Earl  of  Leices- 
ter, on  behalf  of  his  servants,  players  of  interludes.  They  have 
received,  he  says,  license  for  their  interludes  in  various  shires 
from  the  Lord  Lieutenants,  and  he  begs  that  they  may  be  simi- 
larly favored  for  Yorkshire  by  Lord  Shrewsbury.  They  are 
"  honest  men,"  he  assures  the  Earl,  "  and  suche  as  shall  plaienone 
other  matters,  I  trust,  but  tollerable  and  convenient."  ' 
/The  administration  of  the  system  in  towns  is  strikingly 
exemplified  in  the  Order  of  the  London  Common  Council,  of 

1  Lodge,  Illustrations,  I,  307. 


y 


16 

December  6,  1574,1  which  we  shall  consider  at  length  in  a  later 
chapter.  In  the  matter  of  censorship  this  provides  that,  before 
presentation,yplays  must  be  perused  and  permitted  by  the  persons 
appointed  for  that  purpose  by  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen ; 
and  the  utterance  of  unchastity  or  sedition  at  performances  is 
to  be  punished  by  a  fine  and  the  fourteen  days'  imprisonment 
specified  by  the  proclamation  of  1559.  "}Yery  striking  is  the 
emphasis  laid  upon  the  necessity  of  censoring  "unchaste,  un- 
comely, and  unshamefaced  speeches,"  —  a  Puritan  care  for 
morality  in  contrast  with  the  purely  political  attitude  of  the 
J  governmental  declarations  which  we  have  hitherto  considered, 

concerned,  as  they  were,  solely  with  the  suppression  of  matter 
tending  to  sedition. 

A  few  months  before  this  order  of  the  London  authorities,  the 
first  definite  step  had  been  taken  towards  the  establishment  of 
a  licensing  power  which  was  eventually  to  supersede  that  of 
town  and  shire  officials.  The  Master  of  the  Revels  will  be 
treated  in  detail  in  the  following  chapter;  it  is  here  necessary 
only  to  survey  very  briefly  his  place  in  the  general  history  of  the 
censorship.  An  official  of  the  King's  household,  subordinate  to 
the  Lord  Chamberlain,  he  was  originally  concerned  only  with  the 
management  of  court  entertainments.  In  the  performance  of  this 
duty  he  naturally  overlooked  beforehand  and  expurgated,  if  need 
be,  plays  which  were  to  be  performed  at  Court.  The  first  sign  of 
the  extension  of  this  power  to  outside  performances  is  found  in 
the  royal  patent  to  Leicester's  players  issued  on  May  7,  1574,2 
i  which  granted  them  the  privilege  of  performing  throughout  the 
kingdom,  provided  that  their  plays  "be  by  the  Master  of  our 
Revels  (for  the  time  being)  before  seen  and  allowed."  The 
authority  here  given  over  one  company  was  immensely  extended 
by  a  patent  to  the  Master  in  1581,3  which,  among  other  powers, 
authorized  him  to  "warne,  comaunde  and  appointe  in  all  places 
<>  within  this  our  Realme  of  England,  as  well  within  Francheses 
and  Liberties  as  without,  all  and  ev'ry  plaier  or  plaiers,  with 
their  playmakers,  either  belonginge  to  any  Noble  Man  or  other- 

1  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  27-31.     See  below,  pp.  156  ff. 

2  Ibid.,  25—26.     Sec  below,  pp.  33—34. 

3  Shakspere  Society  Papers,  III,  1  17.     See  below,  p.  51. 


17 

wise  bearinge  the  Name  or  Names  or  usingc  the  Facultie  of 
Pla\  makers  or  Plaiers  of  Comedies,  Trajedies,  Enterludes,  or 
what  other  Showes  soever,  from  tyme  to  tyme  and  at  all  tymes 
to  appeare  before  him,  with  all  suche  IMaies,  Tragedies,  Comedies 
or  Showes  as  they  shall  have  in  readiness,  or  mcanc  to  set  forth, 
and  them  to  presente  and  reeite  before  our  said  Servant  or  his 
sufficient  Deputie,  whom  we  ordeyne,  appointe  and  authorise 
bv  these  presentes  of  all  suche  Showes,  Plaies,  Plaiers  and  Play- 
makers,  together  with  their  playinge  places,  to  order  and 
reforme,  auctorise  and  put  downe,  as  shalbe  thought  meete  or 
unmeete  unto  himself  or  his  said  Deputie  in  that  behalfe." 

The  first  part  of  this  passage  may  refer  merely  to  his  selection 
of  plays  for  court  performance,  but  it  could  be  stretched  to  other 
purposes.  The  latter  part  certainly  confers  on  him  very  ex- 
tensive, if  rather  vague,  powers  over  all  the  drama.  Since  the 
licensing  of  plays  was  a  profitable  business,  it  was  to  the  interest 
of  the  Master  to  develop  this  authority  as  extensively  as  possible. 
This  he  began  straightway  to  do ;  but  it  would  be  folly  to  sup- 
pose that  this  patent  created  at  once  any  revolution  in  the  censor- 
ing of  the  drama.  It  was  years  before  the  Master's  licensing 
authority  was  thoroughly  established  in  and  about  London.  It 
could  never  have  been  thoroughly  established  throughout  the 
rest  of  the  kingdom.     But  it  grew  steadily  during  all  our  period. 

The  London  officials  continued  for  some  time  to  exercise 
censoring  power;  but  the  system  outlined  in  the  Common 
Council  Order  of  1574  was  apparently  not  carried  out  very  con- 
sistently. In  1582,  when  the  Privy  Council  was  requesting 
that  plays  be  allowed  in  ~London7~iTsuggested  that  the  City 
should  "appoint  some  proper  person  to  consider  and  allow  such 
plays  only  as  were  fitted  to  yield  honest  recreation  and  no  ex- 
ample of  evil."  1  The  Mayor  replied  that  this  suggestion  would 
be  carried  out,  and  that  "some  grave  and  discreet  person" 
would  be  appointed  to  peruse  the  plays.2 

When  the  Martin  Marprelate  Controversy  was  raging  in  1589, 
some  of  the  players  ridiculed  the  Martinists  on  the  stage. 
Though  the  persons  attacked  were  the  adversaries  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church,  the  government,  in  pursuance  of  its  policy  of  al- 

1  Acts,  XIII,  404.  2  Remcmbruiicia,  351. 

c 


18 

lowing  no  matters  of  "divinity  and  state"  to  be  agitated  upon  the 
stage,  took  rigorous  steps  to  suppress  all  offensive  plays.  For 
more  effective  censorship  in  this  emergency,  the  Privy  Council 
devised  a  commission  representing  the  three  powers  which  had 
been  recognized  as  possessing  authority  over  the  drama,  —  the 
Church,  the  City,  and  the  Crown.  The  Council  requested  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  appoint  "some  fit  person  well 
learned  in  Divinity,"  and  the  Mayor  to  choose  "  a  sufficient  per- 
son learned  and  of  judgment."  These  two  were  to  act  with 
the  Master  of  the  Revels,  the  representative  of  the  Crown,  in 
examining  all  plays  to  be  publicly  presented  in  and  about  Lon- 
don, and  striking  out  and  reforming  "such  parts  and  matters 
as  they  shall  find  unfit  and  undecent  to  be  handled  in  plays, 
both  for  Divinity  and  State."  x 

There  is  no  further  record  of  this  commission.  Whether 
it  was  ever  appointed  and  ever  acted,  we  do  not  know.  The 
episode  is  interesting  and  illuminating,  however,  as  showing 
the  conception  of  the  power  of  censorship  in  1589,  and  the 
(  gradual  progress  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels  towards  exclu- 
sive licensing  power.  In  1592,  the  city  authorities  refer  to 
his  supreme  power  of  licensing  plays  in  and  about  London,2 
but  he  does  not  seem  to  have  established  this  firmly  and  per- 
manently until  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century.  He 
appears  but  dimly  in  the  agitation  of  the  years  1 600-1601,  when 
the  Privy  Council  was  trying  to  restrain  "the  immoderate  use 
and  company  of  Playhouses  and  Players"  in  and  about 
London,  and  sent  urgent  orders  to  the  Lord  Mayor  and  to  the 
Justices  of  the  Peace  of  Middlesex  and  Surrey.3  In  May,  1601, 
when  the  Council  was  displeased  by  the  content  of  a  play  at 
the  Curtain,  it  wrote  to  the  Justices  of  Middlesex  as  those 
having  power  of  censorship,  and  directed  them  in  the  exercise 
of  this.4 

But  by  the  accession  of  James  I  the  Master  was  fairly  well 

\  established  as  censor  of  plays  in  and  about  London.     As  we 

shall  see,  he  performed  this  duty  rigorously  and  profitably  under 

1  Acts,  XVIII,  214-216;    Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  268-269,  note. 

2  Remembrancia,  352-353. 

3  See  below,  pp.  190  ff.  *  See  below,  p.  100. 


19 

the  Stuart  rule.  A  slight  invasion  of  his  prerogatives  is  found 
in  January,  1604,  when  the  royal  patent  to  the  Children  of  the 
Queen's  Revels  provided  that  Samuel  Daniel  should  approve 
and  allow  all  plays  to  be  performed,  before  the  Queen  or  pub- 
licly, by  this  company.1  The  city  authorities  seem  to  have  made 
no  further  claim  to  licensing  plays.  The  church  only  occa- 
sionally interfered.  In  1619,  for  example,  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don exercised  the  right  once  granted  him,  by  forbidding  the 
production  of  Barnevelt.2  The  Crown  and  the  Privy  Council, — 
still  reserving  supreme  power,  of  course,  —  frequently  inter- 
vened, as  we  shall  see,  through  the  Master  or  over  his  head,  to 
protest  against  unfit  matter  in  plays  or  to  suppress  them  alto- 
gether at  times,  as  during  the  plague,  in  Lent,  or  on  Sundays. 
The  Lord  Chamberlain,  as  the  immediate  superior  of  the  Master, 
also  claimed  especial  authority  over  the  drama,  and  towards  the 
end  of  the  period  he  frequently  acted  directly  in  cases  of  trouble. 
Thus  the  hierarchy  of  dramatic  rulers  ran,  —  King,  Privy 
Council,  Lord  Chamberlain,  Master  of  the  Revels ;  and  all  the 
higher  powers  interfered  at  will,  though  for  the  most  part  they 
left  the  exercise  of  authority  to  the  Master,  the  servant  of  the 
Crown. 

There  remains  to  be  considered  in  this  connection  some  gen- 
eral legislation  affecting  the  licensing  of  plays,  —  their  content 
or  their  entire  suppression  at  times.  The  Puritans  had  a  ma- 
jority in  James'  first  Parliament,  and  this  domination  continued. 
Its  influence  now  appears  in  legislation.  (  In  May,  1606,  an 
act  was  passed  "for  the  preventing  and  avoiding  of  the  great 
abuse  of  the  Holy  Name  of  God  in  Stage  playes,  Interludes,  , 
Maygames,  Shows  and  such  like."  If  any  person  shall,  in  such  J 
performances,  "jestingly  or  prophanely  speak  or  use  the  Holy 
Name  of  God  or  of  Christ  Jesus,  or  of  the  Holy  Ghost  or  of  the 
Trinity,  which  are  not  to  be  spoken  but  with  fear  and  reverence," 

1  Patent  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  40-41. 

2  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1619-1623,  71.  Mr.  Fleay  (London  Stage,  266),  con- 
sidering the  intervention  of  the  Bishop  a  "remarkable  innovation  in  stage  his- 
tory," thinks  the  mention  of  him  a  mistake,  the  Lord  Mayor  being  the  person 
really  meant.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Bishop  had  previously  possessed  such 
authority,  and  the  Mayor  would  not  have  been  likely  to  interfere  at  this  late 
date.     See  below,  p.  114. 


20 

he  shalL  the  act  provides,  be  fined  ten  pounds  for  each 
offense.1  jAs  we  shall  see,  the  Master  of  the  Revels  conscien- 
tiously eTTaeavored  to  put  this  into  effect. 

The  Puritan  objection  to  any  sports  on  the  Sabbath  also  ap- 
pears in  general  legislation.  On  his  accession  James  issued 
a  proclamation  forbidding  all  "  Bearbaiting,  Bullbaiting,  Enter- 
ludes,  Common  plays,  or  other  like  disordered  or  unlawful 
Exercises  or  pastimes"  on  the  Sabbath.2  But  the  extremes 
to  which  the  Puritans  went  in  their  suppression  of  "  lawful  recrea- 
tions and  honest  exercises"  on  Sunday  annoyed  James.  Such 
exercises  were  beneficial  to  the  people,  he  declared,  and  besides, 
this  prohibition  of  them  would  militate  against  the  conversion 
of  papists,  who  would  think  our  religion  allowed  "no  honest 
mirth  or  recreation."  In  1618  the  King  therefore  issued  the 
order  known  as  the  "Book  of  Sports,"  3  and  to  the  indignation 
of  the  Puritans  commanded  that  it  be  published  in  all  parish 
churches.  This  allowed,  after  evening  prayers,  on  Sundays 
and  holy  days,  dancing,  archery,  leaping,  vaulting,  May-games, 
Whitsun  Ales,  and  Morris  Dances.  But  plays  were  still  pro- 
hibited, along  with  bear  and  bull  baitings  and  bowling. 

Apparently  these  unlawful  pastimes  still  continued,  for  the 
first  statute  of  the  first  Parliament  of  Charles  I  was  one  for 
"punishing  of  divers  abuses  committed  on  the  Lord's  day, 
called  Sunday."  *  The  phrasing  of  this  act  is  strongly  Puritan 
in  tone.  Under  penalty  of  a  fine,  all  persons  are  forbidden  to 
produce  or  attend  the  condemned  shows,  —  bear  baitings,  bull 
baitings,  interludes,  etc.  "Lawful  sports"  are  still  permitted. 
The  Puritans  complained  that  this  prohibition  of  Sunday  plays 
was  not  enforced ; 5  but  to  Charles  it  seemed  that  the  Puritan 
extremists  were  again  prevailing.  In  1633,  accordingly,  he 
ratified  and  republished  his  father's  order  of  1618,  declaring 
that  no  one  was  to  be  molested  when  engaging  in  " lawful  sports" 

1  3  James  I,  cap.  21.      Statutes,  IV,  pt.  ii,  1097.      Journals  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  I,  270,  286,  294,  300.     Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  II,  416,  419, 
422,  436. 

2  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  341. 

3  Printed  in  Lang,  Social  England  Illustrated,  311-314. 

4  Statutes,  V,  1.     Continued  by  3  Charles  I,  cap.  5.  Statutes,  V,  30. 
'  Prynne,  Histrio-Mastix,  645,  717;  1821  Variorum,  III,  148,  note. 


on  Sunday.  The  prohibition  of  plays  on  the  Sabbath  remained 
as  before.1  Such  was  the  course  of  general  legislation  on  this 
subject  until  1642,  when  the  Puritans  prevailed  and  prohibited 
all  plays  whatsoever  at  all  times  and  seasons.  The  details  of 
the  London  regulations  will  be  considered  in  a  later  chapter. 

We  have  followed,  in  general  outline,  the  history  of  the  power 
of  licensing  plays,  of  determining  what  might  be  played,  and 
when  plays  must  be  stopped  altogether.  The  next  point  to 
consider  is  the  licensing  of  players.  Who  might  play?  How 
were  they  licensed?  There  has  been  some  misunderstanding 
on  these  points.  The  mention  in  the  statutes  of  unlicensed 
players  as  "rogues  and  vagabonds,"  liable  to  brutal  punishment, 
and  the  frequency  with  which  Puritan  wTriters  reproached  the 
profession  with  this  degrading  fact,  have  led  people  to  believe 
that  according  to  the  English  law  all  players  were  outcasts.  It  is 
true  that  the  Roman  law  regarded  the  actor  as  without  civic 
standing,  incapable  of  citizenship,  and  the  early  church  legis- 
lation continued  this  policy,  compelling  him  to  give  up  his  pro- 
fession before  he  could  be  baptized.2  Though  the  class  of  actors 
against  whom  these  laws  were  made  died  out,  the  medieval 
church  preserved  in  its  legislation  much  the  same  attitude  towards 
their  successors,  the  minstrels,  regarding  them  as  beyond  the 
pale.  But  until  the  growth  of  extreme  Puritanism  revived  the 
early  church  policy  on  the  subject,  this  attitude  towards  players 
does  not  appear  in  English  law. 

No  explicit  provision  for  the  licensing  of  actors  was  made  until 
the  statute  of  1.572;  but,  as  we  found  in  the  case  of  the  censor- 
ship, when  the  law  came  it  was  little  more  than  a  codification 
of  the  practices  which  had  already  grown  up.  Our  first  step 
is  to  try  to  discover  what  the  status  of  players  was  during  the 
preceding  century  or  more,  when  feudal  England  was  passing 
over  to  modern. 

It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that,  according  to  the  feudal 
conception  of  society,  every  man  must  have  a  definite  place  in 

1  Lang,  Social  England  Illustrated,  316. 

2  See  Chambers,  Mediaeval  Stage,  I,  chap.  I,  and  Thompson,  Puritans  and 
Stage,  20-21. 


22 

the  social  hierarchy;  some  personage  or  organization  must  be 
responsible  for  him;  he  must  owe  allegiance  to  some  suzerain, 
lay  or  ecclesiastical,  or  to  some  guild  or  town  corporation.  The 
unattached  person,  "the  masterless  man,"  was  an  object  of  sus- 
picion, an  outcast ;  feudal  society  had  no  hold  upon  him.  How, 
then,  did  the  players  fit  into  this  social  system?  The  predeces- 
sors of  the  professional  actors,  the  minstrels,  had  solved  the 
problem  in  various  ways :  they  had  been  retainers  of  nobles 
and  other  powerful  personages;  they  had  imitated  the  trades 
in  organizing  guilds  with  power  to  license  and  regulate  the  pro- 
fession.1 By  the  time  the  professional  players  developed,  how- 
ever, it  was  too  late  for  a  guild  system  to  be  the  natural  method 
of  regulation.  It  was  rather  the  protection  of  a  powerful  lord 
given  to  his  retainers  that  grew  into  a  licensing  system. 

As  we  view  the  state  of  affairs  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  we  find  various  sorts  of  companies  performing.  There 
were,  as  every  one  knows,  many  plays  given  in  towns,  especially 
the  great  cycles  of  mysteries  presented  by  the  trades  guilds. 
The  actors  in  these  were  members  of  the  guilds,  in  good  civic 
standing,  and  the  performance  was  generally  regarded  as  a 
worthy  religious  act.  There  were  parish  plays  somewhat  simi- 
lar in  character.  There  were  —  rather  later,  perhaps  —  plays 
given  by  pupils  in  schools,  by  students  in  universities,  by  the 
young  lawyers  of  the  Inns  of  Court.  All  these  were  more  or 
less  amateur  performances,  approved  by  public  opinion;  the 
actors  were  persons  of  definite  standing  in  the  community; 
there  was,  of  course,  no  suspicion  of  their  being  "rogues  and 
vagabonds." 

Of  a  somewhat  different  type  were  the  companies  kept  by 
noblemen  for  their  own  amusement,  —  the  strictly  professional 
players,  descendants,  apparently,  of  the  minstrel  class.  By 
the  opening  of  the  Tudor  period  these  were  fairly  well  established. 
The  earliest  of  which  we  have  definite  record  are  those  of  Henry 
Bourchier,  Earl  of  Essex,  and  Richard,  Duke  of  Gloucester, 
afterwards  Richard  III,  both  mentioned  in  1482.2  Before  the 
end  of  the  century  the  Earls  of  Northumberland,  Oxford,  Derby, 

1  Chambers,  op.  cit.,  I,  55. 

J  Collier,  in  Shakspere  Society  Papers,  II,  87-88. 


23 

and  Shrewsbury,  and  Lord  Arundel,  all  had  their  players,1  and 
later  the  practice  became  widespread.  Royal  patronage  was 
not  lacking.  Henry  VII  had  four  players  of  interludes  in  his 
household ;  his  son  Arthur,  Prince  of  Wales,  had  a  company 
of  his  own  by  1498,  and  Prince  Henry,  afterwards  Henry  VIII, 
one  by  1506.2  All  the  Tudor  rulers  continued  to  have  a  royal 
company  in  their  household. 

As  personal  retainers  of  such  noble  and  royal  personages, 
these  players  had,  of  course,  adequate  protection  and  a  definite 
place  in  the  social  system.  No  explicit  recognition  of  their 
rights  by  the  law  was  necessary.  The  earliest  mention  of  them 
in  the  statutes,  in  1463,  though  merely  incidental,  indicates  a 
rather  favorable  attitude  towards  them.  Together  with  hench- 
men, heralds,  pursuivants,  swordbearers  to  mayors,  messengers, 
and  minstrels,  "players  in  their  enterludes"  are  exempted  from 
the  sumptuary  law  regulating  the  apparel  to  be  worn  by  differ- 
ent classes  of  society.3  This  exemption  was  continued  by  later 
statutes.4 

While  such  town,  parish,  and  household  players  performed 
in  their  own  homes,  they  were  obviously  safe  from  arrest  as 
vagabonds.  It  was  the  players  who  "wandered  abroad"  who 
needed  some  definite  license  to  protect  them.  And  they  began 
to  travel  very  early.  The  guild  and  parish  players  frequently 
left  their  homes.  In  the  towns  of  Lydd  and  New  Romney,  for 
instance,  we  find,  as  Mr.  Chambers  tells  us,  records  of  the  visits 
of  players,  between  1399  and  1508,  from  no  less  than  fourteen 
neighboring  places  in  Kent  and  Sussex.5  When  their  services 
were  not  required  in  the  households  of  their  masters,  royal  and 
noblemen's  companies  also  traveled,6  playing  wherever  most 
profit  might  be  gained.  Court  performances  by  outside  com- 
panies also  began  early.  Under  Henry  VII  there  are  records  of 
payments  to  players  of  noblemen  and  corporate  towns,  and  to 
"French  players."  7 

1  Chambers,  Mediaeval  Stage,  II,  186.  *  Ibid.,  188,  note. 

5  3  Edward  IV,  cap.  5.  Statutes,  II,  402. 

4  1  Henry  VIII,  cap.  14;  6  Henry  VIII,  cap.  1;  7  Henry  VIII,  cap.  6;  24 
Henry  VIII,   cap.  13.     Statutes,  III,  9,  122,  181,  432. 

1  Mediaeval  Stage,  II,  121.     See  also  ibid.,  184-185.  '  Ibid.,  187. 

7  1821  Variorum,  III,  42-43;    Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  75,  note. 


24 

While  he  could  show  his  connection  with  some  guild  or  town 
corporation,  or  some  royal  or  noble  personage,  and  claim  such 
protection,  the  traveling  player  was  safe  from  molestation  by  the 
authorities,  except  in  cases  of  flagrant  misbehavior.  But  the 
player  who  wandered  without  any  such  connection  was  obviously 
a  "masterless  man,"  without  place  in  the  social  system,  and  if 
he  attracted  the  notice  of  the  local  officials,  he  was  liable  — 
not  as  player,  but  as  masterless  man  —  to  the  penalties  imposed 
upon  all  vagabonds.  And  these  penalties  were  severe.  For 
centuries  England  had  suffered  from  the  disorders  caused  by 
multitudes  of  such  unattached  and  irresponsible  persons.  With 
the  Statutes  of  Laborers,  in  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
began  a  long  course  of  legislation  endeavoring  to  suppress  such 
"vagabonds  and  valiant  beggars."  As  the  feudal  households 
broke  up  after  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  as  soldiers  found  no  lord 
to  follow  to  battle,  as  the  monasteries  were  dissolved,  and  the 
monks  and  the  beggars  they  had  fed  were  thrown  upon  the  world, 
the  necessity  grew  for  rigorous  action  against  the  hordes  of  tramps 
and  rogues  who  infested  and  made  dangerous  the  highways. 
The  laws  became  extremely  severe;  but  severity  alone  could 
accomplish  little.  Under  Elizabeth,  however,  a  great  series 
of  statutes  grappled  seriously  with  the  problem,  and  established 
what  remains  to  this  day  the  basis  of  the  English  Poor  Law.1 
It  was  one  of  this  series  which  first  laid  down,  in  1572,  a  definite 
system  of  licensing  players.  But  before  taking  up  these  pro- 
visions in  detail,  it  is  well  to  consider  a  few  incidents  of  govern- 
ment action  showing  the  situation  of  players  during  the  period 
just  before  the  passage  of  the  statute. 

The  notable  act  of  1543,  already  mentioned  as  the  first  to 
suggest  censorship,  indicates  that  at  this  time  no  license  for 
players  was  required,  at  least  for  mysteries  and"  moralities,  for 
it  provides  that  "it  shalbe  Iawfull  to  all  and  everye  prsone  and 
prsoncs,  to  sette  foorth  songes,  plaies  and  enterludes,  to  be  used 
and  exercysed  within  this  Realme  and  other  the  kinges  Domyn- 
lons,  for  the  rebuking  and  reproching  of  vices  and  the  setting 
'     '       foorth  of  vertue."  2 

1  For  the  history  of  this  legislation,  see  Nicholls,  English  Poor  Law,  I. 

2  See  above,  p.  7. 


25 

There  arc  signs  that  wandering  players  were  beginning  to 
become  prominent  among  the  crowd  of  other  troublesome  vaga- 
bonds. In  1545  Henry  VIII  issued  a  proclamation  "for  the 
punishment  of  Vagabonds,  RulTins,  and  Idlepsons,"  '  condemn- 
ing the  evils  of  vagabondage  and  declaring  that  for  the  reforma- 
tion thereof  the  King  had  decided  to  employ  on  his  galleys  and 
other  vessels,  for  service  in  his  wars,  "all  such  ruffyns,  Vaga- 
bonds, Masteries  men,  Comon  players,  and  euill  disposed 
psons."  It  is  probable  from  the  context,  as  Mr.  Chambers  sug- 
gests,2 that  "Comon  players"  here  refers  to  gamblers;  or  it 
may  be  the  first  appearance  of  actors  in  the  ignoble  classifica- 
tion of  vagabonds.  The  protection  of  great  names  had  evidently 
been  wrongfully  used  by  wanderers,  for  the  proclamation  re- 
quires that  no  one  shall  avow  any  man  to  be  his  servant  unless 
he  really  and  legally  is. 

An  example  of  a  company  traveling  under  the  protection  of 
a  nobleman's  name  is  found  in  the  incident  already  referred 
to,  when,  during  the  acutely  troubled  times  of  Queen  Mary's 
reign,  in  April,  1556,  the  Privy  Council  wrote  to  the  Earl  of 
Shrewsbury,  Lord  President  of  the  North,  requiring  him  to 
suppress  a  company  which  had  been  presenting  "naughty  and 
seditious  plays"  in  the  north  parts.  These  players,  six  or  seven 
in  number,  had  "named  themsellfs  to  be  servaunts  unto  Sr 
Frauncis  Leek,"  and  had  worn  "his  livery  and  badge  on  theyr 
sieves."  Evidently  Sir  Francis  was  considered  responsible  for 
the  conduct  of  his  servants,  for  the  Council  ordered  Lord 
Shrewsbury  to  write  to  him,  "willing  him  to  cause  the  said 
players  that  name  themsellfs  his  servaunts  to  be  sought  for,  and 
sent  forthwth  unto  you,  to  be  farther  examined,  and  ordred 
according  to  theyr  deserts,"  and  commanding  also  "that  he 
suffer  not  any  of  his  servaunts  hereafter  to  goo  abowte  the  coun- 
trie,  and  use  any  playes,  songs,  or  enterludes,  as  he  will  aunswer 
for  the  contrary."  3 

The  liability  of  unprotected  traveling  players  to  punishment 
as  vagabonds  is  evident  in  the  concluding  portion  of  this  letter. 

1  Printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  6-7. 

2  Mediccval  Stage,  II,  222,  note. 

3  Lodge,  Illustrations,  I,  212-213. 


26 

"  And  in  caase  any  p'sonne  shall  attempt  to  sett  forth  these  sorte 
of  games  or  pastymes  at  any  tyme  hereafter,  contrary  to  this 
ordre, "  —  i.e.  the  order  given  earlier  in  the  letter  against  seditious 
plays,  etc.  —  "and  doo  wander  for  that  purpose,  abrode  in  the 
countrie;  yor  L.  shall  do  well  to  gyve  the  Justices  of  Peace  in 
charge  to  see  them  apprehendyd  owt  of  hande,  and  punished  as 
vagabounds,  by  vertue  of  the  statute  made  agaynst  loytering 
and  idle  p'sonnes." 

Elizabeth's  proclamation  of  1559,  though  containing  no 
y  provision  concerning  the  licensing  of  players,  mentions  the 
companies  of  noblemen  and  gentlemen,  and  recognizes  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  patrons  in  seeing  that  their  servants  obey  the 
regulations  concerning  censorship.  "And  further  her  Maiestie 
gyueth  speciall  charge  to  her  nobilitie  and  gentilmen,  as  they 
professe  to  obey  and  regarde  her  maiestie,  to  take  good  order  in 
thys  behalfe  wyth  their  servauntes  being  players,  that  this  her 
Maiesties  commaundement  may  be  dulye  kepte  and  obeyed."  1 
We  have  seen  how,  in  accordance  with  this  order,  Sir  Robert 
Dudley,  in  the  following  month,  wrote  a  letter  on  behalf  of  his 
players  to  the  Lord  President  of  the  North.2 

The  operation  of  this  system  of  licensing  —  if  it  may  be  called 
a  system  —  can  be  observed  also  in  the  records  of  the  town  of 
Leicester,  which  Mr.  Kelly  has  published.  Many  traveling 
companies  appeared  in  Leicester,  and  when  the  Mayor  or  other 
municipal  officers  had  approved  of  their  right  to  play,  they 
were  permitted  to  give  a  sort  of  official  performance.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  the  kind  of  license  these  companies  had,  — 
that  is,  under  the  protection  of  what  personage  or  corporation 
they  traveled.3  The  first  company  so  recorded  is  in  1530,  — 
a  royal  one,  the  Princess  Mary's  players.  In  the  following  year 
the  same  company  came  again,  and  also  the  King's  players. 
In  1537  came  the  Earl  of  Derby's  company  and  the  Lord  Secre- 
tary's.    Later  on  appear  those  of  Sir  Henry  Parker,  of  the  Lord 

1  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  20. 

2  See  above,  p.  15. 

3  See  the  records  in  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  under  the  years  mentioned. 
Portions  of  similar  records  for  other  towns  may  be  found  in  the  Historical  MSS. 
Commission  Reports.  See,  for  example,  visits  of  companies  to  Cambridge  from 
1530  on,  III,  322-323;   and  to  Abingdon  from  1559  on,  II,  149-150. 


27 

Protector,  of  the  Marquis  of  Northampton,  of  the  Duke  of 
Northumberland,  and  in  1555  and  1557  the  Queen's  players. 
After  Elizabeth's  accession  the  "Queen's  players"  appear 
frequently,  and  the  number  of  noblemen's  and  gentlemen's 
companies  increases.  One  appears  under  the  name  of  "my 
Lady  of  Suffolk."  Companies  from  other  towns  also  come,  — 
the  "players  of  Coventry"  in  1564,  1567,  1569,  and  1571,  the 
"players  of  Hull"  in  1568.  So  runs  the  record  up  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  statute  of  1572. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  in  this  period,  though  no  license  was 
explicitly  required,  something  like  a  licensing  system  had  grown 
naturally  out  of  existing  social  conditions.  Players  who  wan- 
dered abroad  needed  to  have  their  legal  status  certified  to  by 
connection  with  some  town  or  some  person  of  rank.  Otherwise 
they  were  liable  to  be  treated  as  vagabonds,  like  other  master- 
less  men.  The  determination  of  their  standing  was  naturally 
left  to  the  discretion  of  the  local  authorities,  —  Mayors  and 
Justices  of  the  Peace.  In  all  cases,  of  course,  they  were  supposed 
to  obey  such  censorship  regulations  as  there  were,  and  the  edicts 
stopping  plays  at  times. 

The  famous  Statute  14  Elizabeth,  cap.  5  (1572),1  was  entitled 
"An  Acte  for  the  Punishement  of  Vacabondes,  and  for  Relief 
of  the  Poore  and  Impotent."  Besides  many  other  provisions, 
it  endeavored  to  regulate  the  throngs  of  wanderers  on  the  high- 
ways, and  it  provided  a  system  of  licensing  for  such  of  them  as 
were  engaged  in  legitimate  business,  —  proctors,  fencers,  bear- 
wards,  actors,  minstrels,  jugglers,  peddlers,  tinkers,  chapmen, 
and  scholars  of  the  Universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  going 
about  begging.  Two  forms  of  license  were  available  for  players 
who  "wandered  abroad."  They  might  "belong  to  any  baron 
of  the  realm  or  other  honorable  personage  of  greater  degree." 
Mere  gentlemen,  who  had  previously  authorized  companies, 
as  we  saw  in  the  proclamation  of  1559,2  were  no  longer  allowed 
the  licensing  power.  If  players  had  not  the  protection  of  a 
noble  personage,  they  were  required  to  procure  a  license  from 
"  two  Justices  of  the  Peace  at  the  least,  whereof  one  to  be  of  the 
Quorum,  where  and  in  what  shire  they  shall  happen  to  wander." 

1  Statutes,  IV,  pt.  i,  590.  2  See  above,  p.  26. 


28 

Subsequent  Poor  Laws  altered  this  system,  steadily  limiting 
the  number  of  those  authorized  to  license  traveling  players, 
taking  away  power  from  local  officials,  and  gradually  concen- 
trating it,  theoretically  at  least,  in  the  Crown.  The  39  Elizabeth 
(1 597-1 598),  cap.  4,1  no  longer  permitted  the  license  of  two  Jus- 
tices of  the  Peace.  Only  barons  or  other  personages  of  greater 
degree  could  license  players  who  "wandered  abroad,"  and  the 
authorization  must  be  in  writing,  "under  the  hand  and  seal  of 
arms  of  such  baron  or  personage."  Finally,  the  Statute  1  James 
I,  cap.  7  2  (1604),  limited  the  licensing  power  to  the  Crown  alone. 
"Henceforth,"  it  declared,  "no  authority  to  be  given  or  made 
by  any  baron  of  this  realm,  or  other  honorable  personage  of 
greater  degree,  shall  be  available  to  free  and  discharge  the  said 
persons,  or  any  of  them,  from  the  pains  and  punishments" 
inflicted  on  vagabonds.  This  left  only  the  possibility  of  royal 
license. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  these  laws  applied  only  to  players 
"wandering  abroad."  This  was  a  vague  and  elastic  term, 
never,  so  far  as  I  know,  explicitly  defined.  It  might  have  been 
taken,  one  would  suppose,  to  apply  to  any  town  actors  perform- 
ing away  from  their  home  town,  and  to  any  nobleman's  or  royal 
company  acting  in  public  away  from  the  household  and  presence 
of  their  patron. 

The  penalties  to  which  the  unlicensed  traveling  player  was 
liable  were  extremely  severe.  According  to  the  14  Elizabeth, 
cap.  5,  if  convicted  of  vagabondage,  he  was  "grievously  whipped, 
and  burnt  through  the  gristle  of  the  right  ear  with  a  hot  iron 
of  the  compass  of  an  inch  about  .  .  .  except  some  honest  per- 
son take  such  offender  into  his  service  for  one  whole  year  next 
following."  If  he  left  this  service,  he  was  to  suffer  the  punish- 
ment just  described.  On  a  second  offense  he  was  to  be  put  to 
■  death  as  a  felon,  unless  taken  into  service  for  two  years,  and  if 
he  deserted  from  this,  he  was  to  be  executed.  On  a  third  con- 
viction he  was  to  suffer  death  and  loss  of  land  and  goods  as  a 
felon,  without  allowance  of  benefit  of  clergy  or  sanctuary.3 
These  punishments  were  altered  somewhat  by  later  laws.  The 
35  Elizabeth,  cap.  7,  substituted  setting  in  the  stocks  for  the  burn- 

1  Statutes,  IV,  pt.  ii,  899.  2  Ibid.,  1024.  3  Ibid.,  pt.  i,  590. 


29 

ing  described  above.1  According  to  the  39  Elizabeth,  cap.  4, 
the  vagabond  was  to  be  whipped  and  sent  back  to  his  birthplace 
or  last  residence;  on  repeated  offenses  to  be  imprisoned  and 
banished;  and  if  he  returned,  put  to  death.2  According  to  the 
1  James  I,  cap.  7,  incorrigible  rogues,  considered  dangerous  by 
Justices  of  the  Peace,  were  to  be  branded  with  an  "R"  and 
sentenced  to  labor ;  on  the  second  offense  to  be  declared  felons 
without  benefit  of  clergy.3 

When  one  considers  these  laws  baldly,  it  certainly  seems  that 
players  must  have  been  a  degraded  and  outcast  class.  But 
this  impression  is  hardly  justified.  Of  course  the  inclusion  of 
any  sort  of  players  in  such  company  was  discreditable  to  the 
profession;  and  wandering  actors  must  have  made  themselves 
obnoxious,  to  cause  their  specific  mention  among  vagabonds. 
But  in  estimating  the  significance  of  the  laws,  we  must  remember 
that  the  rigor  of  these  statutes  was  not  directed  primarily  against 
players.  Their  purpose  and  scope  was  vastly  greater  than  any 
mere  regulation  of  actors.  The  severity  of  the  penalties  was 
supposed  by  a  brutal  age  to  be  necessary  for  the  suppression  of 
the  grave  dangers  of  vagabondage.  The  14  Elizabeth,  cap  5, 
recites  in  its  preamble  that  "all  the  partes  of  this  Realme  of 
England  and  Wales  be  p'sentlye  with  Roges  Vacabondes  and 
Sturdy  Beggers  excedinglye  pestred,  by  meanes  wherof  daylye 
happencth  in  the  same  Realme  Murders,  Theftes  and  other 
greate  Outrage."  The  remedy  of  this  grave  social  trouble  was 
the  object  of  the  act.  The  status  of  players  it  touched  on  only 
incidentally. 

We  must  remember,  too,  that  the  term  "vagabond"  was 
applied  only  to  players  who  "wandered  abroad,"  and  only  to 
unlicensed  players;  and  that  it  was  similarly  applied  to  many 
other  classes  of  people,  some  of  them  pursuing  occupations  con- 
sidered entirely  legitimate,  when  carried  on  under  the  regula- 
tions laid  down  by  law.  The  significance  of  the  mention  of 
players  in  this  connection  can  best  be  seen  from  a  perusal  of 
the  very  interesting  definition  of  Rogues,  Vagabonds,  and  Sturdy 
Beggars  in  the  14  Elizabeth,  cap.  5,  which  gives  a  vivid  picture 
of  English  wayfaring  life  in  the  days  of  the  great  Queen. 

1  Statutes,  IV,  pt.  ii,  855.  2  Ibid.,  899.  3  Ibid.,  1024. 


30 

"All  &  every  suche  p'sone  &  p'sones  that  be  or  utter  themselves 
to  be  Proctours  or  Procuratours,  going  in  or  about  any  Countrey  or 
Countreys  within  this  Realme,  without  sufficyent  Aucthoritye  de- 
ryved  from  or  under  our  Soveraigne  Ladye  the  Queene,  and  all  other 
ydle  p'sones  goinge  aboute  in  any  Countrey  of  the  said  Realme, 
using  subtyll  craftye  and  unlawfull  Games  or  Playes,  and  some  of 
them  fayninge  themselves  to  have  knowledge  in  Phisnomye,  Palmes- 
trye  or  other  abused  Scyences,  whereby  they  beare  the  people  in 
Hand  they  can  tell  their  Destinyes  Deathes  and  Fortunes  and  suche 
other  lyke  fantasticall  Imaginacions;  And  all  and  every  p'sone  and 
p'sones  beynge  whole  and  mightye  in  Body  and  able  to  labour, 
havinge  not  Land  or  Maister,  nor  using  any  lawfull  Marchaundize, 
Crafte  or  Mysterye  whereby  hee  or  shee  might  get  his  or  her  Lyvinge, 
and  can  gyve  no  reckninge  how  hee  or  shee  dothe  lawfully  get  his  or 
her  Lyvinge;  &  all  Fencers  Bearewardes  Comon  Players  in  Enter- 
ludes,  and  Minstrels,  not  belonging  to  any  Baron  of  this  Realme  or 
towardes  any  other  honorable  Personage  of  greater  Degree ;  all 
Juglers  Pedlars  Tynkers  and  Petye  Chapmen;  whiche  said  Fencers 
Bearewardes  Comon  Players  in  Enterludes  Mynstrels  Juglers  Pedlers, 
Tynkers  and  Petye  Chapmen,  shall  wander  abroade  and  have  not 
Lycense  of  two  Justices  of  the  Peace  at  the  leaste,  whereof  one  to  be 
of  the  quorum,  wher  and  in  what  Shier  they  shall  happen  to  wander. 
And  all  Comon  Labourers  being  persons  able  in  Bodye  using  loyter- 
ing,  and  refusinge  to  worke  for  suche  reasonable  Wages  as  ys  taxed 
and  comonly  gyven  in  suche  partes  where  such  persones  do  or  shall 
happen  to  dwell;  and  all  counterfeytures  of  Lycenses  Passeportes 
and  all  users  of  the  same,  knowing  the  same  to  be  counterfeyte;  And 
all  Scollers  of  the  Universityes  of  Oxford  or  Cambridge  y*  goe  about 
begginge,  not  beinge  aucthorysed  under  the  Seale  of  the  said  Univ'- 
sities,  by  the  Comyssarye  Chauncelour  or  Vicechauncelour  of  the 
same;  And  all  Shipmen  p'tendinge  Losses  by  Sea,  other  then  suche 
as  shalbe  hereafter  provided  for;  And  all  p'sones  delivered  out  of 
Gaoles  that  begge  for  their  Fees  or  do  travayle  to  their  Countreys 
or  Freendes,  not  having  Lycense  from  two  Justices  of  the  Peace  of 
the  same  Countye  where  he  or  shee  was  delyv'ed."  l 

Though  they  wandered  in  such  company  at  times,  players,  as 
players,  were  evidently  not  vagabonds  in  the  eyes  of  the  law. 
Players  who  disobeyed  the  government  regulations  were  liable 

1  Statutes,  IV,  pt.  i,  591-592.  Definitions  in  subsequent  laws  differ  somewhat, 
but  follow  this  in  the  main.  Hazlitt  notes  (English  Drama,  37,  note)  that  the 
Statute  7  James  I  (1609-1610),  cap.  4,  directed  against  Rogues,  Vagabonds,  and 
Sturdy  Beggars,  contains  no  mention  of  "Common  Players."  This  is,  however, 
of  no  significance,  since  the  act  does  not  contain  any  definition  or  enumeration  of 
vagabonds,  and  so  would  not  mention  players. 


31 

to  be  considered  such,  as  were  other  masterless  and  lawless  men. 
Of  course  this  argument  is  not  intended  to  imply  that  actors 
were,  on  the  whole,  high  in  the  social  scale;  that  is  a  different 
matter.  But  to  say,  as  does  one  of  the  most  scholarly  of  stage 
historians,  that  "but  for  courtesy  and  a  legal  fiction,  they  were 
vagabonds  and  liable  to  a  whipping,"  l  seems  inaccurate  and 
unjust.  As  is  the  case  to-day,  there  were  players  of  all  sorts, 
—  some  no  better  than  tramps,  some,  like  William  Shakspere, 
high  in  prosperity  and  royal  favor.  The  royal  patents,  which 
we  shall  consider  later  on,  show  the  regard  in  which  many  actors 
were  held  and  their  assured  legal  status.  And  no  player,  while 
he  obeyed  the  regulations  laid  down  by  the  law,  had  need  to 
fear  punishment  as  a  vagabond.  Under  Puritan  domination, 
of  course,  the  whole  situation  was  radically  altered. 

It  is  interesting  to  investigate  the  practical  effect  of  these  laws, 
though  it  is  naturally  possible  to  consider  here  only  a  few  ex- 
amples of  their  operation.  So  far  as  we  can  see,  the  statute  of 
1572  made  very  little  change  from  the  conditions  which  we  ob- 
served in  the  preceding  period.  The  number  of  town  players 
was  diminishing;  but  companies  still  traveled  under  royal  or 
noble  protection;  the  validity  of  their  license  was  still  passed 
on  by  town  and  shire  officials,  who  would,  however,  as  in  the 
past,  rarely  venture  to  refuse  their  approval  for  performances  \ 
by  a  properly  protected  company.  Somewhat  more  regularity 
and  rigor  was  perhaps  observed. 

As  time  went  on,  and  the  relics  of  feudal  ideas  waned,  the 
players  seem  to  have  had  a  less  personal  relation  to  their  patron. 
They  were  no  longer  always  servants  of  the  household;  their 
noble  patron  often  conferred  his  name  and  license  on  them 
largely  as  a  matter  of  form,  in  token  of  his  approval  of  the  drama, 
or  perhaps  sometimes  in  return  for  favors  received.2  We  have 
noticed  that  Sir  Francis  Leek's  company,  in  1556,  wore  his 
livery  and  his  badge  on  their  sleeves,3  in  token  of  their  connec- 

1  Chambers,  Mediceval  Stage,  II,  226. 

2  It  seems  very  likely  that  some  of  the  traveling  companies  may  have  pur- 
chased from  impecunious  noblemen  the  right  to  use  their  name  and  license.  Such 
a  commission  had  a  considerable  cash  value.  Later  on,  royal  licenses  were  some- 
times bought  and  sold,  even  pawned.     See  below,  pp.  41-42. 

3  See  above,  p.  25. 


32 

tion  with  him.  Later  on,  as  the  relation  became  less  personal, 
the  system  of  a  formal  written  license  apparently  became  com- 
mon, and  this  was  required,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  statute  of 
1 597-1 598. '  An  example  of  such  a  license  has  come  down  to 
us,  —  that  shown  to  the  town  officials  of  Leicester  in  1583  by 
the  Earl  of  Worcester's  company.  The  following  copy  of  it  is 
given  in  the  town  records :  — 

"William  Earle  of  Worcester  &c.  hathe  by  his  wrytinge  dated  the 
14  of  Januarye  A0  250  Eliz.  Re  licensed  his  s'unts  v'z.  Robt  Browne, 
James  Tunstall,  Edward  Allen,  Wm  Henryson,  Tho.  Coke,  Rye' 
Johnes,  Edward  Browne,  Rye'  Andrewes  to  playe  &  goe  abrodc, 
vsinge  themselves  orderly  &c.  (in  theise  words  &c.)  These  are 
therefore  to  require  all  suche  her  Highnes  offycers  to  whom  these  p'nts 
shall  come,  quietly  &  frendly  wthin  yor  severall  p'sincts  &  Cor- 
porac'ons  to  p'myt  &  suffer  them  to  passe  wth  yor  furtherance  usinge 
&  demeanynge  yemselves  honestly  &  to  geve  them  (the  rather  for  my 
sake)  suche  intertaynement  as  other  noblemens  players  haue  (In 
Wytnes  &c.) " 2 

Companies  still  traveled,  also,  under  royal  authority.  As 
we  have  seen,  the  players  of  interludes  belonging  to  the  royal 
household  had  gone  on  tour  during  the  earlier  Tudor  reigns  and 
the  first  years  of  Elizabeth's.3  In  March,  1583,  a  new  company 
of  the  "Queen's  servants"  was  organized,  apparently  on  much 
the  same  basis  as  these  earlier  household  players,  but  consisting 
of  the  most  prominent  members  of  the  profession.4  These  actors 
traveled  frequently.  "The  Queen's  Majesty's  players"  are 
noted  as  visiting  Leicester  thirteen  times  within  the  years  1582- 
1602. 5  In  1 591  came  "the  Queen's  Majesty's  players,  being 
another  company  called  the  Children  of  the  Chapel."  This 
deserves  further  notice.  From  the  time  of  Richard  III  it  had 
been  customary  to  issue  orders  for  taking  boys  with  good  voices 
from  the  choirs  of  cathedrals  and  elsewhere  in  order  that  they 
might  sing  in  the  Chapel  Royal  or  St.  Paul's.6    Various  patents 

1  See  above,  p.  28.  2  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  212-213.  3  See  above, 
pp.  23,  26-27. 

*  For  a  more  detailed  account  of  this  company,  see  below,  pp.  166  ff. 

6  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  under  the  years  cited.  Probably  this  title  does 
not  always  designate  the  same  company. 

6  See  Richard  Ill's  warrant  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  41-42,  note. 


33 

conferring  such  authority  were  granted  under  Elizabeth.1 
These  companies  of  children,  as  is  well  known,  were  used  for 
dramatic  as  well  as  choral  purposes.  A  striking  case  in  connec- 
tion with  this  same  company  which  we  find  in  Leicester  in  1591, 
came  up  in  1600,  when  a  complaint  was  made  against  Nathaniel 
Giles,  Master  of  the  Chapel  Children,  and  others.  Under  her 
Majesty's  patent,  the  complainant  declares,  Giles  has  wrongly 
and  unjustly  taken  children  away  from  schools  and  prentices 
from  their  masters,  against  the  will  of  themselves,  their  parents, 
tutors,  and  guardians,  —  children  not  fitted  for  singing  in  the 
Chapel,  but  intended  by  Giles  for  acting  in  plays  and  interludes.2 
The  case  is  an  interesting  one,  and  shows  how  royal  patents  were 
sometimes  twisted  to  dramatic  purposes. 

The  Crown  also  began  to  show  favor  to  other  companies 
besides  those  immediately  in  the  royal  service.  The  tendency 
towards  greater  formality  in  the  licensing  system  and  towards 
the  concentration  of  licensing  power  in  the  Crown  is  shown 
strikingly  in  the  royal  patent  to  the  Earl  of  Leicester's  company 
in  1574,  which  is,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  first  explicit  authoriza- 
tion of  this  kind  to  be  made  formally  under  the  Great  Seal. 
This  document  showing  the  high  favor  in  which  the  Queen  held 
the  company  which  was  afterwards  Shakspere's,  deserves  to  be 
quoted  at  length. 

"Elizabeth  by  the  grace  of  god  Quene  of  England,  France,  and 
Ireland,  defendo1  of  the  faith  &c.  To  all  Justices,  Mayors,  Sheriefs, 
Bayliffs,  heade  Constables,  under  Constables,  and  all  other  our 
officers  and  ministers  greeting.  Knowe  ye  that  we,  of  or  esp'iall 
grace,  certen  knowledge  and  mere  moc'on,  Have  licensed  and  au- 
thorized, and  by  these  p'sents  do  license  and  aucthorize,  or  loving 
subjects  James  Burbadge,  John  Perkyn,  John  Lanham,  William 
Johnson  and  Robert  Wylson,  servantes  to  or  trustie  and  welbeloved 
Cosyn  and  Counsellor,  the  Earle  of  Leicestre,  To  use,  exercise  and 
occupie  the  art  and  faculty  of  playeng  comedies,  tragedies,  Enter- 
ludes,  Stage  playes,  and  such  other  like  as  they  have  alredy  used  and 
studied,  or  hereafter  shall  use  and  studye,  aswcll  for  the  recreac'on 
of  or  loving  subjects,  as  for  or  solace  and  pleasure,  when  we  shall 

1  See  Lvsons,  Environs,  I,  69,  note;  and  such  a  patent  printed  in  full  in  Hazlitt, 
English  Drama,  33. 

'  See  documents  printed  in  Fleay,  London  Stage,  127  ft". 
U 


34 

thinke  good  to  se  them.  As  also  to  use  and  occupie  all  such  Instrum" 
as  they  have  alredy  practised,  or  herafter  shall  practise,  for  and 
during  our  plesr:  And  the  said  Comedies,  Tragedies,  Enterludes  and 
Stage  playes,  together  wth  there  musick,  to  shewe,  publishe,  exercise 
and  occupy  to  their  best  comoditie  during  all  the  terme  afforesaid, 
as  well  wttlin  or  Cyty  of  London  and  Libties  of  the  same,  as  also  wthin 
the  liberties  and  fredoms  of  any  or  Cytyes,  townes,  Boroughes  &c. 
whatsoever,  as  wthout  the  same,  thoroughout  or  Realme  of  England: 
willing  and  comaunding  yow  and  every  of  yow,  as  ye  tender  our 
pleasure,  to  p'mit  and  suffer  them  herin  wthout  any  yor  letts,  hinder- 
ance,  or  molestac'on  during  the  terme  afforesaid,  any  act,  statute, 
p'clamac'on,  or  com'aundm'  hertofore  made,  or  herafter  to  be  made, 
to  the  contrary  notwthstanding.  Provided  that  the  saide  Comedies, 
Tragadies,  Enterludes  and  Stage-playes  be  by  the  Mr  of  or  Revills 
(for  the  tyme  being)  before  seen  and  allowed,  and  that  the  same  be 
not  published,  or  showen  in  the  tyme  of  comen  prayer,  or  in  the  tyme 
of  greate  and  comen  plague  in  or  said  Cyty  of  London.  In  witnes 
whereof,  &c."  l 

It  should  be  noted  especially  that  this  patent  is  explicitly 
declared  to  be  supreme  in  all  places  over  all  other  acts,  statutes, 
proclamations,  or  orders  whatsoever.  The  authority  which  it 
bestowed  would  naturally  prevail  over  all  local  regulations  in 
London  or  elsewhere,  and  is  an  interesting  example  of  the  auto- 
cratic power  exercised  by  the  Crown.2 

Less  formal  licenses  were  also  granted  indirectly  by  the  royal 
authority.  On  April  29,  1593,  for  example,  the  Privy  Council 
gave  an  "open  warrant"  to  the  Earl  of  Sussex's  players,  author- 
izing them  to  "exercise  their  quality  of  playing  comedies  and 
tragedies  in  any  county,  city,  town,  or  corporation,  not  being 
within  seven  miles  of  London,  where  the  infection  is  not,  and  in 
places  convenient  and  times  fit."  3  About  a  week  later  a  similar 
license  was  issued  to  Lord  Strange's  company.4 

Such  royal  authorization,  even  if  not  necessary  under  the  law, 
was  very  valuable  to  any  nobleman's  players.  It  brought  them 
much  greater  consideration  from  local  officials  and  higher  pay, 
—  for  it  was  customary,  as  we  see  in  the  Leicester  records,  to 
pay  a  company  in  proportion  to  the  rank  and  dignity  of  its 
protector.5 

1  From  the  text  of  the  Privy  Seal,  printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  25-26. 

2  See  below,  p.  155.  3  Acts,  XXIV,  209.  *  Ibid.,  212. 
6  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  94. 


35 

Another  form  of  indirect  royal  authorization  grew  up  within 
this  period,  —  that  by  the  Master  of  the  Revels.  By  his  patent 
of  1 58 1,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Crown  had  delegated  to  him 
power  "to  order  and  reform,  authorize  and  put  down"  all  plays, 
players,  and  playmakers,  together  with  their  playing  places, 
throughout  the  kingdom.1  This  appeared  to  confer  power  to 
license  players  everywhere.  As  we  shall  see,  the  Master  suc- 
ceeded in  course  of  time  in  establishing  his  right  to  do  so  in 
the  country  at  large,  but  his  right  to  license  actors  within  Lon- 
don remained  somewhat  doubtful.  An  example  of  a  company 
traveling  under  his  license  appears  in  Leicester  in  1583.  Un- 
familiar with  this  sort  of  authorization,  the  town  officials  entered 
the  company  on  the  records  as  the  "servants  of  the  Master  of 
the  Revels,"  —  the  form  used  in  the  case  of  noblemen's  players. 
They  entered  also  a  copy  of  the  license.2 

The  patent  of  1574  and  the  other  royal  favors  to  certain  com- 
panies mark  a  change  which  was  taking  place  in  stage  condi- 
tions. A  few  more  or  less  permanent  companies  were  now  be- 
coming prominent,  and  as  these  gained  in  the  newly  erected 
theaters  fixed  playing  places,  they  succeeded  in  establishing 
themselves  more  firmly  and  overshadowing  the  less  important 
players.  Certain  prominent  companies  frequently  performed 
at  Court,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  the  royal  favor  secured  for  them 
many  privileges  in  London.  The  Privy  Council  occasionally 
requested  the  local  officials  in  and  about  the  city  to  permit  per- 
formances by  the  favored  players  and  no  others,  —  thus  giving 
them  a  sort  of  monopoly  and  foreshadowing  the  system  which 
developed  in  the  next  reign. 

The  conditions  under  James  and  Charles  differed  to  some  ex- 
tent from  those  under  Elizabeth.     As  we  have  seen,  the  Statute  1  .„ 
James  I,  cap.  7,  took  away  from  noblemen  the  power  of  licensing  ' 
players.3     There  remained  only  the  license  from  the  Crown. 
Besides  some  desire  for  stricter  regulation,  the  purpose  of  this 

1  See  above,  pp.  16-17. 

3  See  below,  p.  53.  Some  additional  references  for  records  of  traveling  com- 
panies during  this  period  may  be  found  in  Halliwcll-Phillipps,  Visits  of  Shake- 
speare's Company;  and  J.  T.  Murray,  English  Dramatic  Companies  in  the  Towns 
outside  of  London,  1550-1600,  in  Modern  Philology,  II,  no.  4  (April,  1905). 

3  See  above,  p.  28. 


36 

law  appears  to  have  been  the  granting  of  a  monopoly  to  the 
favored  companies.  The  Puritan  element  in  Parliament  no 
doubt  desired  restriction  of  the  number  of  players  and  would, 
indeed,  probably  have  liked  to  abolish  them  utterly;1  the  King 
was  glad  to  have  the  power  of  licensing  entirely  in  his  own  hands. 
The  system  of  royal  patents,  already  begun,  now  developed  ex- 
tensively. This  sort  of  authorization  had,  we  have  observed, 
been  available  long  before  this,  in  one  form  or  another :  royal 
companies  had  traveled  abroad  under  the  protection  of  the  royal 
name,  probably  under  the  earlier  Tudor  kings,  and  certainly 
from  Mary's  time  onward;  the  Chapel  Children  had  used  their 
patent  for  a  similar  purpose;  less  formal  authorizations,  and  in 
1574  a  patent  under  the  Great  Seal,  had  been  issued  to  noble- 
men's companies.2  The  Crown  now  proceeded  to  extend  this 
system  of  formal  patents,  and  to  convert  the  prominent  noble- 
men's companies  into  servants  of  the  various  members  of  the 
royal  family. 

This  policy  James  had  begun  immediately  after  his  accession, 
and  before  the  passage  of  the  statute.  He  arrived  in  London  on 
May  7,  and  on  May  1 7  there  was  issued  the  Privy  Seal,  directing  the 
patent  under  the  Great  Seal  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  com- 
pany, Shakspere's,  to  be  known  henceforth  as  the  King's  Men. 
This  important  document  is  here  quoted  as  a  type  of  such  li- 
censes. It  is  obviously  modeled  on  Elizabeth's  patent  of  1574, 
with  some  alterations.  As  permanent  theaters  were  now  in 
existence,  the  company's  London  playing  place  is  here  specified. 
The  addition  of  the  urgent  royal  request  that  courtesy  and  con- 
sideration be  shown  to  the  actors  is  also  notable,  and  indicates 
the  high  favor  in  which  they  were  held. 

"James,  by  the  grace  of  God,  King  of  England,  Scotland,  Fraunce 
&  Irland,  defendor  of  the  faith,  &c.  To  all  Justices,  Maio",  Sheriffs, 
Constables,  Hedboroughes,  and  other  or  officers  and  loving  subjects 
greeting.  Know  ye,  y'  we  of  or  speciall  grace,  certaine  knowledge, 
&  meere  motion  have  licenced  and  authorized,  &  by  these  prhts  doo 
licence  and  authorize,  these  or  s'vants,  Lawrence  Fletcher,  William 
Shakespeare,  Richard  Burbage,  Augustine  Phillippes,  John  Hennings, 
Henry  Condell,  William  Sly,  Rob't  Armyn,  Richard  Cowlye,  and  the 

1  See  below,  p.  222.  2  See  above,  pp.  32  S. 


37 

rest  of  their  associats,  freely  to  use  and  exercise  the  Arte  and  facultie 
of  playing  Comedies,  Tragedies,  Histories,  Entcrludcs,  Moralls, 
Pastoralls,  Stage  plaies,  &  such  other  like,  as  they  have  already 
studied,  or  heerafter  shall  use  or  studie,  aswell  for  the  recreation  of 
or  loving  subjects,  as  for  or  solace  and  pleasure,  when  we  shall  thinke 
good  to  see  them,  during  or  pleasure.  And  the  said  Comedies, 
Tragedies,  Histories,  Knterludc,  Morall,  Pastoralls,  Stage  plaies, 
&  such  like,  To  shew  and  exercise  publiqucly  to  their  best  Com- 
moditic,  when  the  infection  of  the  plague  shall  decrease,  as  well  wthin 
theire  now  usuall  howse  called  the  Globe,  wthin  or  Countie  of  Surrey, 
as  also  wthin  anie  towne  halls,  or  Mout  halls,  or  other  convenient 
places  \vthin  the  lib'ties  and  frcedome  of  any  other  Cittie,  Univ'sitie, 
Towne,  or  Borough  whatsoev'  w"'in  or  said  Realmes  and  dominions. 
Willing  and  comaunding  you,  and  ev'y  of  you,  as  you  tender  or 
pleasure,  not  only  to  p'mitt  and  suffer  them  heerin,  wthout  any  yor 
letts,  hinderances  or  molestac'ons,  during  or  said  pleasure,  but  also 
to  be  ayding  and  assisting  to  them  yf  any  wrong  be  to  them  offered. 
And  to  allowe  them  such  former  Courtesies,  as  hathe  bene  given  to 
men  of  their  place  and  qualitie:  And  also  what  further  favor  you 
shall  shew  to  these  or  s'vants  for  or  sake,  we  shall  take  kindely  at  yr 
hands.     In  witness  wherof  &c."  ' 

Within  a  short  time  after  the  date  of  this  patent  the  Earl  of 
Worcester's  players  must  have  been  taken  into  the  service  of 
Queen  Anne,  and  the  Admiral's  into  Prince  Henry's;  for  on 
February  19,  1604,  there  is  a  record  of  payments  to  the  "  Prince's 
players"  and  the  "Queen's  Majesty's  players,"  2  and  in  April, 
1604,  the  three  companies  of  the  King,  the  Queen,  and  the  Prince 
are  mentioned  in  a  letter  from  the  Privy  Council  to  the  Lord 
Mayor.3  The  patent  for  the  Queen's  players  exists  only  in  a 
rough,  undated  draft,  conjecturally  dated  in  the  Calendar  of 
State  Papers,  July,  1603.4  No  patent  for  the  Prince's  company 
exists  of  earlier  date  than  1606.4  Perhaps  the  first  one  granted 
has  been  lost;  or  the  early  authorization  of  the  company  may 
have  been  in  some  less  formal  shape.  In  January,  1604,  a 
patent  appointed  the  Chapel  boys  Children  of  the  Revels  to  the 

1  From  the  text  of  the  Privy  Seal,  printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  38-40. 
See  Appendix. 

2  Cunningham,  Revels  Accounts,  xxxv. 

5  Printed  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  472,  and  in  Henslowe  Papers, 
61-62. 

*  For  particulars  concerning  dates  and  bibliography  of  patents,  see  the 
Appendix. 


38 

Queen.1  In  the  following  June  was  passed  the  Statute  I  James 
i,  cap.  7,  formally  establishing  this  system  by  the  abolition  of 
noblemen's  licenses.2 

The  process  of  taking  over  the  prominent  London  companies 
to  the  service  of  members  of  the  royal  family  continued.  The 
Duke  of  York,  afterwards  Charles  I,  and  the  Lady  Elizabeth, 
afterwards  Queen  of  Bohemia,  were  patrons  of  companies.  The 
Elector  Frederick,  the  King's  son-in-law,  took  over  to  his  service 
the  Prince's  players  on  the  death  of  Prince  Henry  in  1612.  In 
161 5  a  provincial  traveling  company  was  granted  a  patent  under 
the  name  of  "  Her  Majesty's  Servants  of  her  Royal  Chamber  at 
Bristol."  All  these  patents  are  modeled,  in  the  main,  on  that 
of  the  King's  Men,  with  some  modifications.  For  example, 
more  specific  regulations  are  inserted  concerning  playing  in  time 
of  plague ;  in  some  later  patents  a  proviso  is  introduced  reserv- 
ing all  rights  granted  to  the  Master  of  the  Revels ;  and  various 
theaters  are  of  course  specified  as  the  authorized  playing  places. 
A  second  patent  was  sometimes  granted  to  a  company  for  one 
cause  or  another :  the  company  was  reorganized  in  some  way, 
or  its  patron  changed,  as  when  Charles  I  took  over  his  father's 
players,  or  the  Elector,  Prince  Henry's ;  or  it  wished  specific 
authority  to  perform  in  some  other  theater,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
new  patent  to  the  King's  Men  in  161 9,  confirming  their  right  to 
play  at  the  Blackfriars  theater  as  well  as  at  the  Globe.3 

In  running  over  even  thus  briefly  the  history  of  royal  patents, 
mention  should  be  made  of  an  interesting  indication  of  the 
growth  of  Puritan  influence.  /The  warrant  to  Giles  in  1626,  for 
taking  up  singing  boys  for  service  in  the  Royal  Chapel,  for  the 
first  time  expressly  forbids  their  acting  in  plays,  because  "it  is 
not  fit  or  decent  that  such  as  should  sing  the  praises  of  God 
Almighty  should  be  trained  or  employed  in  such  lascivious  and 
profane  exercises."  *  ' 

The  result  of  the  system  of  patents  was  a  practical  monopoly 

1  For  particulars  concerning  dates  and  bibliography  of  patents,  see  the 
Appendix. 

2  See  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  I,  193,  199,  207,  214,  240,  245; 
Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  II,  301,  303,  304,  315,  319,  320,  321,  327. 

'See  below,  pp.  201-202,  and  Appendix. 
*  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  446. 


39 

of  playing  in  London  for  the  group  of  favored  companies  in'. 
royal  service.  This  was  eminently  in  keeping  with  the  customs 
of  the  time.  Under  Elizabeth,  as  the  system  of  central  control 
over  industries  supplanted  local  trade  regulation,  there  had  been 
royal  patents  of  monopoly  granted  to  favored  persons, — one, 
for  example,  giving  sole  right  to  import,  make,  and  sell  playing- 
cards,  which  gave  rise  to  a  famous  suit,  and  glass,  salt,  soap,  and 
saltpeter  monopolies.  Under  James  and  Charles  the  Crown  sold 
such  patents,  with  more  or  less  profit  to  the  royal  treasury.1 

In  the  case  of  the  actors  the  monopoly  of  the  patentees  was 
not  absolute.  We  find  records  of  outside  companies  appearing 
occasionally  in  London.  French  players,  for  example,  were 
granted  permission  to  perform  in  1629  and  1635,  and  a  "com- 
pany of  strangers"  appeared  in  1623. 2 

There  were  other  forms  of  license  conferred  on  players  besides 
the  royal  patents.  The  Lord  Chamberlain,  who,  as  we  have 
seen,  had  special  jurisdiction  over  the  drama,  issued  various 
tickets  of  privilege  to  companies  and  to  individual  actors.3 
An  interesting  example  is  a  "players'  pass,"  issued  in  1636  and 
signed  by  the  Earl  of  Pembroke  and  Montgomery,  Lord  Cham- 
berlain. It  grants  to  certain  members  of  the  King's  company 
who  are  to  attend  his  Majesty  on  his  progress,  royal  authority 
to  travel  and  perform  in  all  towns  corporate,  etc.,  while  on  this 
tour.4  In  the  Leicester  records  we  find  in  1622  a  note  of  a  com- 
pany of  players  traveling  "under  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
authority" ;  and  in  1625  and  1627  a  company  designated  as  "the 
Earl  of  Pembroke's  servants,"  —  a  title  which  may  indicate  a 
similar  authorization.5 

The  Lord  Chamberlain's  subordinate,  the  Master  of  the  Revels, 
extended  during  this  period  the  exercise  of  the  large  powers 

1  See  Price,  English  Patents  of  Monopoly. 

2 1821  Variorum,  III,  120,  note,  121,  note,  224;  Chalmers,  Supplemental 
Apology,  215,  216,  note. 

3  Chalmers,  Apology,  512,  note. 

4  Printed  in  1S21  Variorum,  166-167,  note,  from  MS.  in  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain's Office. 

5  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  under  the  years  cited.  Pembroke  was  Lord 
Chamberlain  from  161 7  to  1630.  He  was  succeeded  in  that  office  by  his  brother, 
the  Earl  of  Pembroke  and  Montgomery. 


40 

delegated  to  him  by  the  King.  Though  it  is  doubtful  whether 
he  ever  actually  licensed  companies  of  players  in  London,  he 
seems  to  have  exercised  this  power  freely  in  other  parts  of  the 
kingdom.  During  the  period  several  companies  appeared  at 
Leicester  traveling  under  the  Master's  license, — one  in  1623, 
one  in  1626,  three  in  1630,  and  one  in  1639.1 

It  seems  that  when  a  traveling  company  presented  a  proper 
license  to  town  officials,  it  had  by  custom  a  right  to  perform. 
The  royal  patents,  indeed,  expressly  granted  this  right,  and  later 
ones  authorized  the  actors  to  play  in  any  town  halls,  moot  halls, 
or  other  convenient  rooms  within  any  town  they  visited.  When 
such  a  performance  in  official  buildings,  or  anywhere  in  the  town, 
happened  to  be  inconvenient  or  distasteful  to  the  local  authori- 
ties, they  paid  the  players  a  lump  sum  of  money  for  foregoing 
their  right  to  perform.2  From  1571  on,  entries  of  such  payments 
may  be  found  in  the  Leicester  records,  varying  in  amount  accord- 
ing to  the  dignity  of  the  players'  patron  or  license.  As  the 
Puritan  feeling  grew  stronger  these  became  more  frequent,  cul- 
minating in  the  year  1622,  when  seven  such  payments  were 
made.3     Similar  entries  are  found  in  the  records  of  other  towns.4 

Though  the  Statute  1  James  I,  cap.  7,  limiting  the  licensing 
power  to  the  Crown,  was  fairly  well  obeyed  in  London,  it  was 
apparently  not  consistently  enforced  in  the  kingdom  at  large. 
Noblemen  had  theoretically  no  longer  the  right  to  license  wan- 
dering players;   but  their  companies  still  traveled  through  the 

1  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  under  the  years  cited. 

3  Thompson,  in  his  Puritans  and  Stage,  131,  quotes  from  the  Speech  and 
Charge  of  Justice  Coke  in  1606,  as  printed  in  a  pamphlet  published  in  1607, 
a  passage  which  seems  to  contradict  this  view  of  the  players'  right  to  perform. 
Referring  to  the  abuses  caused  by  actors  throughout  the  country,  the  Charge 
asserts  that  they  may  be  easily  reformed.  "They  hauing  no  Commission  to 
play  in  any  place  without  leaue:  And  therefore,  if  by  your  willingnesse  they  be 
not  entertained  you  may  soone  be  rid  of  them."  But  Coke  himself,  in  the 
Preface  to  the  seventh  part  of  his  Reports,  condemned  this  pamphlet  as  "errone- 
ous" and  "published  without  his  privity."  "Besides  the  omission  of  divers 
principal  matters,"  he  declared,  "there  is  no  one  period  therein  expressed  in 
that  sort  and  sense  that  I  delivered."  (See  a  discussion  of  the  matter  in  Notes 
and  Queries,  April  30,  1853.)  We  may  therefore  safely  disregard  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  law  contained  in  the  printed  Charge.     See  also  below,  p.  72. 

3  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  under  the  years  cited. 

*  Sec  Historical  MSS.  Commission  Reports,  X,  pt.  iv,  540;   XI,  pt.  iii,  28. 


41 

country  and  were  recognized  by  local  officials  as  entitled  to  per- 
form.1 In  the  Leicester  records  of  payments  to  players  I  have 
noted  such  companies  after  1604,  when  the  new  law  was  passed. 
One  appeared  in  1605,  two  in  1606,  1608,  1610,  1614,  and  one  in 
1615.  About  this  time  some  inkling  of  the  new  regulations  seems 
to  have  reached  Leicester.  In  1616,  for  the  first  time,  players 
are  noted  as  having  a  "warrant  under  the  King's  hand  and  privy 
signet."  Two  such  entries  appear  in  this  year  and  one  in  161 7 ; 
in  1618  is  a  notice  of  a  company  with  a  "commission  under  the 
Great  Seal  of  England"  ;  and  during  these  three  years  no  noble- 
man's company  is  mentioned.  But  if  the  town  was  consciously 
living  up  to  the  new  law,  it  soon  relapsed.  In  the  following 
years,  among  the  entries  of  royal  companies,  noblemen's  appear 
again,  —  one  in  1619,  two  in  1620,  and  one  in  1624,  1625,  1627, 
and  1637.  During  the  later  years  the  name  or  authority  of  a 
company  is  often  omitted,  and  the  records  of  licenses  are  thus 
incomplete.2 

One  would  not  expect  to  find,  of  course,  any  rigorous  or  consis- 
tent enforcement  of  the  law  throughout  the  kingdom.  Even  if 
the  local  officials  were  familiar  with  the  regulations  and  con- 
scientiously tried  to  put  them  into  effect,  there  were  numerous 
possibilities  of  evasion.  A  pathetic  protest  has  come  down  to  us 
from  the  London  Common  Council,  in  1584,  complaining  that'll/ 
when  special  privileges  were  granted  to  the  Queen's  Men,  all 
the  playing  places  in  the  city  were  filled  with  players  calling 
themselves  the  Queen's  Men.3  Even  when  formal  patents  were 
in  use,  they  could  be  handed  from  one  company  to  another.  We 
see  the  Mayor  of  Exeter  in  anxious  uncertainty  as  to  whether 
he  had  offended  the  Crown  by  refusing  permission  to  a  company 
of  men,  thirty,  forty,  and  fifty  years  of  age,  with  only  five  youths 
among  them,  to  act  on  the  authority  of  a  royal  patent  for  chil- 
dren.4 The  Mayor  of  Banbury,  in  1633,  arrested  a  company  as 
rogues,  because,  though  they  had  two  licenses,  one  from  the  Mas- 

1  The  company  authorized  by  the  Duke  of  Lennox  in  1604  should  perhaps 
be  placed  in  this  class.  Or  possibly  his  blood  relationship  to  the  King  gave 
him  some  claim  to  licensing  power.    See  his  warrant  in  the  Henslowe  Papers,  62. 

2  Kelly,  op.  cit.,  under  the  years  cited. 

3  Document  printed  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  216.  See  below, 
p.  174.         *  Fleay,  London  Stage,  310;   State  Papers,  Dom.,  1611-1618,  549. 


42  - 

ter  of  the  Revels  and  the  other  from  the  King,  the  date  of  the 
first  had  been  forged  and  the  second  had  been  purchased  from 
a  pawnshop ! * 

There  remains  to  be  considered  the  national  regulation  of 
playing  places;  but  on  this  point  there  is  comparatively  little 
to  be  said.  Apparently  there  was  no  definite  system  of  licensing 
playhouses,  and  no  general  legislation  on  the  subject.  Such 
regulations  as  there  were,  were  chiefly  matters  of  local  adminis- 
tration, and,  in  the  case  of  London,  will  be  treated  in  detail  in 
a  later  chapter.  There  are  a  few  points,  however,  which  may 
fittingly  be  touched  on  here. 

The  earliest  concern  about  playing  places  was  an  affair  of  the 
church  rather  than  of  the  state.  Growing  out  of  the  liturgical 
origin  of  the  English  drama,  the  custom  of  giving  plays  in  churches 
survived  sporadically  until  Stuart  times,  though  many  efforts 
were  made  to  suppress  it.  In  1542  Bishop  Bonner  of  London 
issued  a  proclamation  to  the  clergy  of  his  diocese,  prohibiting 
"all  manner  of  common  plays,  games,  or  interludes  to  be  played, 
set  forth,  or  declared  within  their  churches,  chapels,  etc."  2 
Similar  orders  were  promulgated  at  later  dates,  and  even  in  1603 
the  abuse  was  noticed  in  one  of  the  Canons  of  James  I,  given 
soon  after  his  accession.3  As  late  as  1602  players  apparently 
claimed  at  times  a  sort  of  prescriptive  right  to  perform  in  churches, 
for  we  find  entered  in  the  parish  register  of  Syston,  a  village  near 
Leicester,  a  payment  in  that  year  by  the  churchwardens  "to 
Lord  Morden's  players  because  they  should  not  play  in  the 
church  .  .  .  xii  d."  * 

As  in  the  licensing  of  plays  and  players,  the  Crown  and  the 
Privy  Council  exercised  supreme  power  at  will,  and  interfered 
in  local  administration.  We  shall  find  the  Council  frequently 
asking  or  commanding  the  London  authorities  to  permit  per- 
formances in  certain  playing  places ;  authorizing  the  erection  of 

1  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1633-1634,  47-49.  2  ^2I  Variorum,  III,  45- 

3  Ibid. ;   and  see  also  Chambers,  Medurval  Stage,  II,  191,  and  Kelly,  Drama 

in  Leicester,  15-16. 

*  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  16.     Probably  the  parish  officials  feared  to  offend 

the  players'  noble  patron  by  an  unqualified  refusal  to  allow  their  performance  in 

the  church,  and  thus  bought  them  off. 


> 


43 

a  new  theater;  or  ordering  that  an  old  one  be  "plucked  down" 
and  abolished.  The  Master  of  the  Revels  also  had  power  to 
license  playing  places,  and,  in  one  case  at  least,  he  granted  per- 
mission for  the  erection  of  a  new  theater  in  London.1 

The  system  of  royal  patents,  moreover,  extended  to  playing 
places.  Those  issued  to  certain  companies,  as  we  have  seen, 
explicitly  authorized  performances  in  any  "town  halls,  moot 
halls,  guild  halls,  schoolhouses,"  or  other  convenient  places  in 
the  towns  they  visited.  And  they  also  licensed  the  company 
specifically  to  perform  in  its  permanent  London  theater,  whether 
this  was  in  the  City  or  in  the  Liberties.  Special  royal  patents, 
granting  permission  to  erect  new  theaters  in  and  about  London, 
were  issued,  as  we  shall  find,  in  1615, 1620, 1635,  and  1639.  The 
last  of  these,  to  Sir  William  D'Avenant,  is  interesting  as  showing 
what  is  apparently  a  new  feature  in  government  regulation,  — 
a  restriction  on  the  prices  of  admission.  The  patentee  is  au- 
thorized to  charge  only  "such  sum  or  sums  as  is  or  hereafter 
from  time  to  time  shall  be  accustomed  to  be  given  or  taken  in 
other  playhouses  and  places  for  the  like  plays,  scenes,  present- 
ments, and  entertainments."  2 

1  See  below,  pp.  73-74.  2  See  1821  Variorum,  III,  93-95. 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Master  of  the  Revels 

The  various  functions  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels  were  as 
characteristic  of  the  age  in  which  he  served  as  was  his  picturesque 
title.     He  is  therefore  not  altogether  easy  to  understand  unless 
one  conceives  him  against  a  background  of  the  customs  of  his 
time.     His  duties  were  of  two  sorts.     The  first  and  the  more 
ancient,  his  original  function  as  an  officer  of  the  King's  house- 
hold, was  the  devising  and  managing  of  court  masques,  dis- 
guisings,  plays,  and  other  entertainments  for  the  amusement  of 
the  Sovereign  and  the  celebration  of  festivals  and  great  occa- 
sions.    The  second  duty,  that  with  which  we  are  especially 
concerned,  was  the  licensing  and  regulating  of  the  drama  outside 
the  Court,  throughout  the  kingdom,   and  was  of  much  later 
growth.     It  is  not  possible  to  understand  his  exercise  of  this 
second  function  unless  one  bears  in  mind  that  it  was  of  a  twofold 
nature.    The  Master  was  a  government  official,  whose  duty  it  was 
to  execute  the  laws  and  to  regulate  the  stage  in  accordance  with 
the  best  interests  of  the  state.     But  his  position  was  also  frankly 
a  money-making  business.    He  sold  licenses  as  profitably  as  he 
could ;   he  devised  new  extensions  of  his  power  and  new  forms 
of  commissions  which  would  increase  his  income.     By  virtue 
£>       of  his  royal  patent  he  even  exercised  the  right  to  sell  permis- 
sion to  break  certain  laws,  —  as  in  the  case  of  his  dispensations 
for  performances  in  Lent.     Sometimes  he  purchased  his  office 
for  a  considerable  sum,  and  then  it  was  obviously  necessary  for 
him  to  recoup  his  outlay  by  the  sale  of  all  possible  sorts  of 
licenses  and  the  securing  of  various  payments  from  the  players. 
Though  such  an  administration  of  a  government  office  is  not 
considered  quite  the  proper  thing  to-day,  it  was  usual  enough 
and   not   especially   frowned  upon  under   Elizabeth   and   the 

44 


, 


45 

Stuarts.  It  is  perhaps  easier  to  understand  the  Master's  exercise 
of  the  powers  granted  by  his  patents,  when  one  compares  other 
"dispensing  patents "  of  a  somewhat  similar  sort,  common  enough 
among  the  many  grants  of  monopoly  made  during  the  period, 
which  we  touched  on  in  considering  the  royal  patents  to  players. 
These  licensing  or  dispensing  patents  were  awarded  as  favors 
or  sold  by  the  Crown.  They  authorized  the  patentees  either  to 
license  others  to  do  something,  or  to  issue,  upon  receipt  of  com- 
position, pardons  for  infractions  of  some  penal  law,  or  to  grant 
dispensations  from  the  penalties  of  a  certain  statute,  in  return  for 
a  fee.1  This  virtually  enabled  offenders  to  bargain,  either  peri- 
odically or  once  for  all,  for  the  right  to  break  the  law.  Exam- 
ples are  numerous.  An  ordinary  licensing  patent  was  granted 
to  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  in  1588-1589,  authorizing  him  "to  make 
licenses  for  keeping  of  taverns  and  retailing  of  wines  throughout 
England."  2  A  striking  case  of  a  dispensing  patent  is  that 
to  Thomas  Cornwallis  in  1 596-1 597,  empowering  him  "to  make 
grants  and  licenses  for  keeping  of  gaming-houses,  and  using  of 
unlawful  games,  contrary  to  the  statute  of  33  Henry  VIII."  3 
Laws  were  apparently  sometimes  passed  in  order  to  make  possible 
profitable  grants  of  the  right  to  break  them.  Regulations  were 
made,  for  example,  concerning  the  tanning  of  leather,  which 
could  not  possibly  be  followed ;  and  then  Sir  Edward  Dyer  was 
authorized  to  pardon  and  dispense  with  penalties  for  the  viola- 
tion of  this  statute.  In  exercising  this  right  he  and  his  deputies 
gained  an  evil  reputation  for  extortion.4 

It  was  very  natural  that  a  similar  practice  should  gradually 
grow  up  in  the  dramatic  world,  as  the  Master  of  the  Revels  strove 
to  extend  profitably  the  vague  powers  granted  by  his  patents. 
As  we  have  seen,  the  Statute  1  James  I,  cap.  7,  finally  took  away 
from  all  other  personages  the  right  to  license  traveling  players 
and  the  other  wanderers  on  the  highways  who  were  engaged  in 
legitimate  business,  and  left  only  the  license  by  the  Crown.5 
By  virtue  of  the  royal  patent  delegating  authority  to  him,  the 
Master  naturally  granted  licenses  to  traveling  players,  — "dis- 

1  Price,  English  Patents  of  Monopoly,  12.  7  Ibid.,  146. 

*  Ibid.,  147.  *  Ibid.,  13-14. 

8  See  above,  p.  28. 


46 

pensations"  from  the  penalties  of  this  statute.  Similar  power  to 
license  others  of  the  wanderers  was  granted.  There  is  a  men- 
tion of  a  patent  under  James  I  for  "  the  licensing  of  pedlars  and 
petty  chapmen,"  '  and  a  much  closer  analogy  to  the  Master's 
powers  is  found  in  the  case  of  the  royal  patents  to  the  "  Master 
of  the  King's  Games  of  Bears,  Bulls  and  Dogs,"  which  were 
apparently  interpreted  as  granting  power  to  license  bear-baitings 
and  bull-baitings  in  Paris  Garden  and  by  traveling  showmen.2 

It  is  scarcely  probable  that  the  original  grant  of  authority 
outside  the  Court  to  the  Master  of  the  Revels  was  a  conscious 
inauguration  of  a  dispensing  patent  of  this  sort,  or  even  that  he 
himself,  in  extending  his  jurisdiction,  consciously  endeavored 
to  make  it  such.  The  analogous  cases  which  I  have  cited  merely 
go  to  show  how  natural,  how  consistent  with  the  customs  of  the 
time,  was  the  growth  of  the  Master's  licensing  power,  —  uncon- 
stitutional as  it  may  appear  at  first  sight.  With  them  in  mind 
it  will  perhaps  be  easier  to  understand  the  history  of  the  develop- 
ment of  his  authority. 

The  loss  of  many  important  documents  makes  the  tracing  of 
this  history  a  difficult  task.  Had  we,  for  instance,  the  vanished 
office  books  of  Tilney  and  Buc,  the  earlier  Masters,  we  might 
find  that  their  activity  was  as  great  as  that  of  the  busy  Herbert, 
whose  intermeddling  in  dramatic  affairs  shines  out  so  vividly 
from  the  pages  of  his  Register.  If  the  Patent  Rolls,  moreover, 
and  additional  town  records,  are  ever  accessible  in  complete 
and  orderly  form,  it  will  be  possible  to  trace  the  Masters  more 
clearly.     As  it  is,  much  of  their  history  must  be  conjectural. 

In  the  Court  of  the  early  kings  an  important  duty  was  that 
of  managing  the  royal  pastimes.  The  Lord  Chamberlain,  as 
head  of  the  great  branch  of  the  royal  household  known  as  the 
Chamber,  had  charge  of  the  Sovereign's  amusements,  —  of  his 
hunting  by  day  and  his  revels  and  shows  by  night.  As  the  Court 
grew  more  splendid  and  more  complex,  various  subordinate  offi- 
cials gradually  developed,  to  take  charge  of  branches  of  this  ser- 
./  vice.     The  Master  of  the  Revels  first  appeared  under  Henry  VII. 

1  Price,  op.  cit.,  167. 

'Collier,  Alleyn  Memoirs,  70  ft.,  99  ft.;  Alleyn  Papers,  26;  Henslowe's 
Diary,  212;   Hcnslowe  Papers,  1,  4,  12,  97  ft. 


47 

Originally  he  seems  to  have  been  appointed  temporarily, 
from  among  the  officials  already  in  attendance  at  Court,  to  devise 
and  superintend  the  disguisings,  masques,  or  other  entertain- 
ments on  special  occasions.  This  practice  continued  in  the  reign 
of  Henry  VIII,  until  finally,  as  the  office  grew  in  importance  under 
that  splendor-loving  king,  a  permanent  Master  was  appointed 
in  1545,  in  the  person  of  Sir  Thomas  Cawarden.  The  depart- 
ment continued,  of  course,  to  be  under  the  general  authority  of 
the  Lord  Chamberlain.1 

Sir  Thomas  Cawarden's  patent  is  of  importance  and  interest 
as  the  model  on  which  the  patents  of  appointment  of  all  subse- 
quent Masters  were  based.  The  date  is  March  11,  1545,  but 
the  appointment  is  to  run  from  March  16  of  the  preceding  year. 
Cawarden  is  named  "Magister  Jocorum,  Revelorum  et  Masco- 
rum  omnium  et  singulorum  nostrorum,  vulgariter  nuncupatorum 
Revells  and  Masks."  The  appointment  is  for  life.  Cawarden 
is  granted  all  houses,  mansions,  rights,  liberties,  and  advantages 
appertaining  to  the  office,  and  a  salary  of  £10  per  year.2 
The  phrasing  of  this  patent  was  followed  almost  exactly  in  those 
of  later  Masters.  The  powers  conferred  are,  it  will  be  noticed, 
somewhat  ill  denned  and  capable  of  various  interpretations. 
By  extraordinary  stretching  of  the  phrase,  Herbert  later  held  that 
his  very  wide  claims  to  licensing  power  over  all  sorts  of  shows 
throughout  the  kingdom  were  justified  by  the  words  "  Jocorum, 
Revelorum  et  Mascorum."  3 

During  the  lifetime  of  Sir  Thomas  Cawarden,  however,  it 
occurred  to  no  one  to  extend  the  Master's  jurisdiction  over  plays 
outside  the  Court.  He  was  busied  only  with  the  devising  and 
presentation  of  masques  and  shows  for  the  entertainment  of  the 
Sovereign.4  He  lived  to  superintend  Elizabeth's  coronation 
festivities,  and  died  on  August  29,  1559.5    His  successor,  Sir 

1  On  the  origin  of  the  Office  of  the  Revels  see  Chalmers,  Apology,  471-472; 
Chambers,  Mediaval  Stage,  I,  404-405,  and  Tudor  Revels,  1-5,  52. 

3  The  patent  is  printed  in  Rymer,  Feedera,  XV,  62-63,  an<^  noted  in  Letters 
and  Papers  of  Henry  VIII,  XX,  213. 

3  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  60. 

*  On  the  Office  under  Cawarden  see  Chambers,  Tudor  Revels,  9  ff. 

s  Ibid.,  18.  Fleay's  incorrect  date  for  Cawarden's  death  leads  him  into 
serious  error.  {London  Stage,  43.)  He  is  followed  by  Schelling.  (Elizabethan 
Drama,  I,  1 01-102.) 


48 

Thomas  Benger,  was  formally  appointed  by  a  patent  of  January 
18,  1560,  similar  to  Cawarden's,  with  the  additional  provision 
that  it  was  to  hold  in  the  reigns  of  her  Majesty's  successors.1 
Benger  was  apparently  a  very  inefficient  Master.  No  patent 
appointing  a  successor  was  issued  until  after  his  death,  which 
occurred  in  1577;  but,  as  we  learn  from  the  Revels  Accounts, 
he  gave  up  all  active  exercise  of  his  functions  by  the  summer  of 
1572.  After  this  date  he  no  longer  signed  the  accounts.  His 
duties  were  performed  by  the  subordinate  officers,  especially  by 
Thomas  Blagrave,  the  Clerk  of  the  Revels,  who  served  as  Acting 
Master  from  November,  1573,  until  Christmas,  1579,  by  special 
appointment  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain.2  Under  Benger's  in- 
efficient management  the  Office  had  apparently  become  disor- 
ganized, and  in  1573  Lord  Burghley  took  up  the  question  of  its 
reorganization.  To  this  end,  he  seems  to  have  called  for  reports 
or  suggestions  from  the  three  officers  then  in  charge,  —  the  Clerk 
Comptroller,  the  Clerk,  and  the  Yeoman.  Their  three  reports 
survive  in  the  Lansdowne  MSS.  and  throw  an  interesting  light 
on  the  organization  and  business  of  the  Office  at  this  time.3 
From  our  point  of  view  they  are  especially  noteworthy  as  show- 
ing that  in  1573  it  was  busied  solely  with  the  preparation  of  court 
entertainments :  the  care  of  costumes,  the  purchasing  of  proper- 
ties and  supplies,  —  such  were  the  chief  concerns  of  the  Revels. 
In  the  suggestion  made  by  the  three  officers  for  the  reformation 
of  the  department,  there  is  no  proposal  that  they  should  have 
jurisdiction  or  censorship  over  the  drama  in  the  outer  world. 
Buggin,  the  Clerk  Comptroller,  suggests,  it  is  true,  that  the  power 
of  the  officers  should  be  strengthened  by  a  commission  authoriz- 
ing them  to  enforce  service  from  the  Queen's  subjects/  —  that 
is,  to  compel  workmen  to  serve  the  Office  in  emergencies.  This 
was  apparently  to  be  somewhat  similar  in  nature  to  the  com- 
missions authorizing  the  Master  of  the  Chapel  to  "take  up" 
singing  boys,  and  those  empowering  other  departments  of  the 

1  Printed  in  Rymer,  Fcedera,  XV,  565. 

2  Cunningham,  Revels  Accounts,  48,  77;    Chambers,  Tudor  Revels,  51-52. 

'  All  three  are  printed  at  length  in  Chambers,  op.  cit.,  31  ff.  The  first  is  given 
in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  68  ff.  Mr.  Chambers  dates  them  all 
—  rightly,  I  think — 1573. 

*  Chambers,  op.  cit.,  41-42. 


49 

household  to  command  provisions  and  cartage.1  Perhaps  the 
Revels  had  already  enjoyed  such  authority  on  special  occasions. 
The  suggestion  bore  fruit,  as  we  shall  see,  in  Tilney's  commis- 
sion of  1 5S1,  which  granted  him  wide  powers  of  this  sort. 

Though  no  proposal  was  yet  made  for  the  bestowal  of  the  cen- 
sorship on  the  Revels  Office,  the  germ  that  was  to  develop  into 
its  extensive  jurisdiction  was  already  visible.  The  Master  fre- 
quently called  outside  companies  of  actors  before  him,  and  had 
them  rehearse  plays  which  might  be  suitable  for  court  presenta- 
tion, in  order  that  he  might  select  the  best.2  He  also  looked  over 
numerous  plays  in  manuscript,  to  judge  of  their  merits.  Many 
needed  alteration  of  some  sort,  in  length  or  substance,  before  they 
were  quite  suitable  for  the  Court.  The  responsibility  of  seeing 
that  no  offensive  word  reached  her  Majesty's  ear  rested,  of  course, 
on  the  Master,  and  he  made  many  changes  in  the  dramas  to  be 
produced.  In  1571  we  find  in  the  Revels  Accounts  a  list  of  six 
plays  given  at  Court,  "all  whiche  vi  playes  being  chosen  owte  of 
many,  and  founde  to  be  the  best  that  were  to  be  had,  the  same 
also  being  often  perused  and  necessarely  corrected  and  amended 
by  all  thafforeseide  officers."  3  In  subsequent  years  "perusing 
and  reforming  of  plays"  appears  frequently  in  the  Accounts.4 

In  such  summoning  of  outside  companies  before  him  to  act 
plays  for  his  approval,  and  in  the  expurgation  of  the  manuscripts 
submitted,  lay  the  germ  of  the  Master's  censoring  and  licensing 
power.  His  jurisdiction  over  performances  outside  the  Court 
was  formally  begun  in  the  patent  granted  by  Queen  Elizabeth  to 
the  Earl  of  Leicester's  players  in  1574.5  These  fortunate  actors, 
servants  of  the  Queen's  favorite,  were,  as  we  have  seen,  given 
by  patent  under  the  Great  Seal  of  England  the  right  to  perform 
in  all  cities  and  towns  of  the  realm,  even  within  London  itself, 
without  molestation  from  the  authorities,  any  act,  statute,  proc- 
lamation or  commandment  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
Such  an  extraordinary  favor  had  never  been  granted  to  any 


1  See  above,  pp.  32-33;  and  Chambers,  Tudor  Revels,  51. 

2  Cunningham,  Revels  Accounts,  39,  159.     Plays  were  sometimes  rehearsed 
before  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  for  his  approval.     Ibid.,  120,  136. 

'Ibid.,  13.  *See,  for  example,  ibid.,  87,  92,  198. 

*  See  above,  pp.  33-34- 

E 


V 


50 

actors  before,  and  it  was  but  natural  that  the  Crown  should  wish 
to  have  these  players  bound  in  some  way  not  to  abuse  their 
privilege.  If  the  local  officials  were  not  to  have  jurisdiction  over 
them,  it  was  necessary  that  some  Crown  officer  should  see  that 
they  performed  nothing  harmful  to  the  good  order  of  the  state. 
Obviously  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  already  used  to  such  super- 
vision of  plays,  and  already  the  director  of  these  very  players  in 
their  frequent  appearances  at  Court,  was  the  natural  person  to  be 
intrusted  with  this  function.  The  actors  were  therefore  permitted 
to  perform  only  on  condition  that  all  their  plays  "be  by  the  Mas- 
ter of  our  Revels,  for  the  time  being,  before  seen  and  allowed." 

At  the  date  of  the  granting  of  this  first  portion  of  licensing 
power,  the  Revels  Office  was,  as  we  have  seen,  in  a  somewhat 
unsettled  state.  Benger  was  not  performing  his  duties,  the 
Clerk,  Blagrave,  was  serving  as  Acting  Master,  and  the  reor- 
ganization of  the  Office  was  under  consideration.  In  these  cir- 
cumstances it  is  not  probable  that  any  considerable  effort  was 
made  to  develop  and  extend  this  profitable  jurisdiction.  But 
within  a  few  years  the  situation  was  radically  changed.  In 
1577  Benger  died;  in  December,  1578,  the  name  of  Edmund 
Tilney  first  appears  as  signing  the  Revels  Accounts ; '  and  on 
July  24,  1579,  a  patent  was  issued  formally  appointing  Tilney 
Master,  and  providing  that  his  service  was  to  date  from  the 
preceding  Christmas.  The  terms  of  his  patent  are  precisely  like 
Cawarden's,  except  for  a  few  slight  verbal  changes  and  the 
additional  provision,  as  in  Benger's,  that  it  is  to  hold  in  succeed- 
ing reigns;  no  mention  is  made  of  the  new  censoring  power 
conferred  on  the  Master  by  the  patent  to  Leicester's  company 
five  years  before.2 

The  new  Master,  Edmund  Tilney,  was  of  good  family,  a  con- 
nection of  Lord  Howard  of  Effingham,  and  with  some  literary 
achievement  to  his  credit, —  The  Flower  of  Friendship,  a  dia- 
logue on  matrimony  which  he  had  dedicated  to  Elizabeth  in 
1568.  Under  his  energetic  hand  the  reorganization  of  the  Revels 
Office  seems  to  have  proceeded  rapidly.     He  evidently  saw  the 

1  Cunningham,  Revels  Accounts,  124. 

2  Tilney's  patent  is  printed  at  length  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Rec- 
ords, 2-3. 


51 

necessity  for  a  commission  granting  him  power  to  enforce  service 
from  workmen,  such  as  the  Clerk  Comptroller  had  recom- 
mended in  1573;  and  he  must  have  perceived  some  of  the  great 
possibilities  in  the  extension  of  his  jurisdiction  over  performances 
outside  the  Court.  The  fruit  of  his  efforts  appeared  in  the  very 
favorable  patent  granted  him  on  December  24,  1581.1 

This  is  entitled  "Commissio  specialis  pro  Edo.  Tylney,  Ar. 
Magistro  Revellorum."  It  differs  from  the  patents  of  appoint- 
ment in  various  ways.  In  the  first  place  it  is  in  English  instead 
of  Latin ;  it  is  a  grant  of  special  powers  to  Tilney  personally  from 
the  Queen,  and  is  not  mentioned  as  holding  in  the  reigns  of  her 
Majesty's  successors.  Apparently  it  had  to  be  renewed  in  the 
case  of  succeeding  Masters,  and  we  shall  find  in  later  years  that 
such  declarations  of  the  powers  of  the  Revels  Office  were  made 
from  time  to  time  by  the  Crown  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain. 
This  commission  resembles  in  nature,  as  we  have  suggested,  the 
grants  issued  at  intervals  to  the  Masters  of  the  Chapel  Children, 
authorizing  them  to  "take  up"  singing  boys  for  the  Queen's 
service. 

The  patent  first  empowers  Tilney  to  take  and  retain  at  compe- 
tent wages  for  the  royal  service,  in  all  parts  of  England,  all  such 
painters,  embroiderers,  tailors,  and  other  workmen  as  may  be 
needed  in  the  Revels  Office ;  and  to  take  all  necessary  materials 
and  carriage  at  a  reasonable  price.  If  any  persons  refuse  to 
serve,  or  withdraw  from  the  work,  Tilney  is  authorized  to  imprison 
them  as  long  as  he  may  think  fit.  The  workmen  of  the  Revels 
are  to  be  under  the  special  protection  of  the  Queen  during  their 
time  of  service,  and  are  to  be  freed  from  prison  by  the  Master's 
authority,  should  they  be  arrested  at  the  suit  of  any  other  persons. 
They  are  also  to  be  released  from  the  obligation  of  completing 
any  other  contract  or  work  which  they  may  have  undertaken,  until 
they  shall  have  ended  their  service  in  the  Revels. 

Then  follows  the  clause  already  quoted,2  giving  the  Master 
power,  in  all  places  in  England,  to  summon  all  players,  with  their 
playmakers,  that  they  may  recite  any  of  their  plays  before  him 

1  First  printed  from  the  Patent  Rolls  by  T.  E.  Tomlins,  in  the  Shakspere 
Society  Papers,  III,  i  tT.  It  is  also  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I, 
247-249,  note;   and  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Illustrations,  pt.  i.  2  pp.  16-17. 


52 

or  his  Deputy,  "whom  wee  ordeyne,  appointe  and  authorise  by 
these  presentesof  all  suche  Showes,  Plaies,  Plaiersand  Playmakers, 
together  with  their  playinge  places,  to  order  and  reforme,  auc- 
torise  and  put  downe,  as  shalbe  thought  meete  or  unmeete  unto 
himselfe  or  his  said  Deputie  in  that  behalfe."  The  power  granted 
him  of  imprisoning  all  recalcitrant  actors  or  playwrights  is  also 
notable.  "And  also  likewise  we  have  by  these  presentes  au- 
thorised and  com'aunded  the  said  Edmunde  Tvlnev,  that  in  case 
any  of  them,  whatsoever  they  be,  will  obstinatelie  refuse,  upon 
warninge  unto  them  given  by  the  said  Edmunde,  or  his  sufficient 
Deputie,  to  accomplishe  and  obey  our  comaundement  in  this 
behalfe,  then  it  shalbe  lawful  to  the  said  Edmunde,  or  his  suffi- 
cient Deputie,  to  attache  the  partie  or  parties  so  offendinge  and 
him  or  them  to  com'ytt  to  Warde,  to  remaine  without  bayle  or 
mayneprise,  untill  suche  tyme  as  the  same  Edmunde  Tylney  or 
his  sufficient  Deputie  shall  thinke  the  tyme  of  his  or  theire  ym- 
prisonment  to  be  punishment  sufficient  for  his  or  their  said 
offence  in  that  behalfe ;  and  that  done  to  inlarge  him  or  them  so 
beinge  imprisoned  at  their  plaine  libertie  without  any  losse, 
penaltie,  forfeiture  or  other  damages  in  this  behalfe  to  be  sus- 
teyned  or  borne  by  the  said  Edmunde  Tylney,  or  his  Deputie; 
any  Acte,  Statute,  Ordinance  or  P'vision  heretofore  had  or  made 
to  the  contrarie  hereof  in  any  wise  not  withstandinge."  Finally, 
all  officials  are  commanded  to  aid  the  Master  in  the  execution  of 
his  duties. 

It  is  difficult  to  discover  just  how  far  and  how  rapidly  Tilney 
succeeded  in  extending  and  defining  the  vague  and  general  powers 
conferred  on  him  by  this  patent,  —  in  having  his  authority  to 
license  plays,  players,  and  playhouses  recognized  throughout  the 
kingdom.  In  the  face  of  the  opposition  of  the  powerful  Corpo- 
ration of  London,  the  growth  of  his  authority  within  that  city 
was  necessarily  slow.  In  the  spring  of  1582,  a  few  months  after 
the  issue  of  his  special  commission,  the  Privy  Council  apparently 
did  not  recognize  him  as  having  any  jurisdiction  over  plays  in 
London,  for,  as  we  have  seen,  they  requested  the  Lord  Mayor  to 
appoint  some  proper  person  to  overlook  and  license  plays  to  be 
performed  in  the  city.1     In  fact,  during  all  the  agitation  of  the 

1  See  above,  p.  17. 


53 

years  1582- 1584,  concerning  the  admission  of  actors  into  Lon- 
don, the  Master  of  the  Revels  is  never  mentioned  in  the  volumi- 
nous correspondence  between  the  Privy  Council  and  the   city  ! 
authorities.1 

But  Tilney  was  already  claiming  authority  over  plays  and 
players  throughout  the  kingdom  almost  as  extensive  as  that 
asserted  by  his  successors.  He  was  certainly  licensing  players 
to  travel,  for,  as  we  found,  a  company  appeared  at  Leicester  in 
1583,  bearing  a  commission  signed  by  him  and  dated  Febru- 
ary 6  of  that  year.  From  the  abstract  of  parts  of  this  document 
given  in  the  Leicester  records,  confused  though  it  is,  one  can  see 
that  he  was  claiming  the  exclusive  right  to  license  players  and 
allow  plays. 

"In  wch  Indenture  there  ys  one  article  that  all  Justices,  Maiors, 
Sherifs,  Bayllyfs,  Constables,  and  all  other  her  Officers,  Ministers  & 
suhiects  whatsoev'  to  be  aydinge  &  assistinge  unto  the  said  Edmund 
Tilneye,  his  Deputies  &  Assignes,2  attendinge  &  havinge  due  regard 
unto  suche  parsons  as  shall  disorderly  intrude  themselves  into  any 
the  doings  &  acc'ons  before  menc'oned,  not  beinge  reformed  quali- 
fyed  &  bound  to  the  orders  p'scribed  by  the  said  Edmund  Tyllneye. 
These  shalbee  therefore  not  only  to  signifye  &  geve  notice  unto  all 
&  ev'y  her  said  Justices  &c  that  non  of  there  owne  p'tensed  auc- 
thoritye  intrude  themselves  &  presume  to  showe  forth  any  suche 
playes,  enterludes,  tragedies,  comedies,  or  shewes  in  any  place  wthin 
this  Realm,  wthoute  the  ord'lye  allowance  thereof  under  the  hand  of 
the  sayd  Edmund. 

"  Nota.  No  play  is  to  be  played,  but  such  as  is  allowed  by  the  sayd 
Edmund,  &  by  his  hand  at  the  latter  end  of  the  said  booke  they  doe 
play."  3 

The  players  who  carried  this  license  became  involved  in  a  dis- 
pute at  Leicester  with  the  Earl  of  Worcester's  company,  who 
attacked  the  validity  of  their  commission.  The  objection  was 
not,  however,  against  the  authority  of  the  Master  to  issue  such 
licenses,  but  was  based,  apparently,  on  the  fact  that  Haysell, 
the  chief  player,  to  whom  the  commission  had  been  granted, 

1  On  March  10,  1583,  Tilney  was  summoned  to  Court  to  select  the  players 
for  the  Queen's  new  company  (Cunningham,  Revels  Accounts,  186);  but  this 
was  naturally  a  part  of  his  duty  as  manager  of  court  entertainments. 

2  Tilney's  license  evidently  quoted  the  portion  of  his  commission  of  1581 
calling  on  all  officials  to  assist  him  in  the  exercise  of  his  authority. 

s  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  211-212. 


THE 

VERSITY 

s£4L!FOF 


54 

was  not  present,  and  the  actors  bearing  it  were  not  really  entitled 
to  its  protection.1  So  chaotic,  however,  are  the  pronouns  of  the 
Leicester  scribe,  that  it  is  hard  to  discover  just  what  the  ground 
of  the  quarrel  was. 

No  other  company  appeared  at  Leicester  under  the  Master's 
authorization  until  1623.  Were  the  records  of  other  towns 
accessible,  it  might  be  possible  to  ascertain  how  extensively  he 
exercised  such  authority  during  the  intervening  period. 

In  London  we  have  no  sign  of  Tilney's  activity  until  1589. 
Mr.  Chambers  thinks  that  by  1587  the  Privy  Council  had  al- 
ready begun  to  regard  him  as  primarily  responsible  to  them  for 
the  regulation  of  the  theaters,  and  cites  the  order  for  the  tempo- 
rary suspension  of  performances  in  and  about  London  issued  by 
the  Council  on  May  7,  1587,  copies  of  which  were  sent,  according 
to  Mr.  Dasent's  edition  of  the  Council  Register,  to  the  Lord 
Mayor,  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  of  Surrey,  and  the  Master  of  the 
Rolls.2  Mr.  Chambers  states  that  "  Rolls  "  must  be  an  error  for 
"  Revels,"  and  suggests  that  this  is  the  Master's  first  appearance 
as  regulator  of  the  London  drama.3  But  the  Master  of  the  Rolls 
was  really  the  official  meant,  for  it  appears  from  the  Council 
Register  that  he  exercised  the  authority  of  a  Justice  of  the  Peace 
in  Middlesex.  In  1577  similar  orders  for  the  suppression  of 
plays  in  that  county  were  sent  to  him  and  to  the  Lieutenant  of 
the  Tower,  who  also  had  jurisdiction  in  parts  of  Middlesex,  — 
those  adjacent  to  the  Tower.4  There  are  several  other  examples 
of  the  exercise  of  similar  functions  by  the  Master  of  the  Rolls.5 

Though  in  the  surviving  documents  the  Master  of  the  Revels 
does  not  appear  in  this  r61e  as  early  as  1587,  it  is  probable  that  he 
was  already  exercising  some  supervision  over  the  London  drama. 

1  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  212.         '  Acts,  XV,  70.         s  Tudor  Revels,  76. 

*  Acts,  IX,  388. 

6  On  March  2,  1591,  the  Privy  Council,  desiring  stricter  enforcement  of  the 
regulations  against  killing  and  eating  flesh  without  license  in  Lent,  sent  orders 
to  this  effect  to  the  Lord  Mayor,  to  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  Surrey  who  had 
jurisdiction  over  parts  of  Southwark,  and  to  "  the  Master  of  the  Rolls  and  Thomas 
Barnes,  esquire,  Justices  of  Peace  for  the  county  of  Middlesex."  (Acts,  XX, 
322-323.)  Similarly,  on  June  23,  1592,  when  the  Council  desired  to  take  pre- 
cautions against  riots  in  and  about  London,  it  sent  orders  to  the  Master  of  the 
Rolls,  among  many  other  Justices  of  the  Peace  and  various  officials.  (Acts, 
XXII,  549-55 * •) 


55 

In  1589,  when  the  Martin  Marprelatc  controversy  was  treated 
on  the  stage,  Tilncy  certainly  had  something  to  say  about  the 
drama  in  the  city,  for  he  appears  to  have  reported  to  the  Privy 
Council  that  improper  plays  were  being  performed ;  whereupon 
the  Lords  ordered  the  suppression  of  all  plays  in  London. 
"Where  by  a  l're  of  your  Lordships,  directed  to  Mr.  Yongc,  it 
appered  unto  me,"  wrote  the  Lord  Mayor  to  Lord  Burghley, 
"that  it  was  your  ho:  pleasure  that  I  sholde  geve  order  for  the 
staie  of  all  playes  within  the  cittie,  in  that  Mr.  Tilney  did  utterly 
mislike  the  same."  l 

This  Martin  Marprelatc  trouble  and  the  consequent  appoint- 
ment of  the  censorship  commission,  of  which  Tilncy  was  a  mem- 
ber, apparently  gave  the  Master  a  favorable  start  on  his  career  '  ' 
as  licenser  of  plays  in  and  about  London.  Realizing  the  neces- 
sity of  some  stricter  censorship  of  the  drama,  and  feeling,  ap-  - 
parently,  that  the  old  system  of  supervision  by  the  city  authori- 
ties was  inadequate,  the  Privy  Council  established,  as  we  have 
seen,2  a  commission  of  three  persons  —  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  1  &<t  [ 
an  expert  in  divinity  appointed  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, and  a  representative  of  the  city  government  —  to  examine, 
expurgate,  and  license  all  plays  to  be  given  in  and  about  London. 
Even  if  his  colleagues  on  this  commission  ever  served,  they  ap- 
parently soon  withdrew  from  active  participation  in  the  work. 
The  Master,  supported  by  the  authority  of  his  royal  patents 
and  by  this  new  and  more  explicit  grant  of  power,  rapidly 
extended  his  jurisdiction,  and  developed  the  licensing  business 
into  a  profitable  one. 

The  earliest  surviving  manuscript  showing  Tilney's  "reforma- 
tions" for  public  performance  —  that  of  Sir  Thomas  More  — 
is  dated  by  Dyce  about  1590,  the  year  following  the  appointment  \ 
of  the  commission.3  By  1592  Tilney  was  evidently  exercising  / 
wide  power,  and  his  authority  in  London  was  recognized  by  the 
city  officials.  It  is  noticeable  that  he  was  now  licensing  play- 
houses as  well  as  plays.  On  February  25,  1592,  the  Aldermen 
wrote  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  informing  him  of  the 
disorders  and  corruption  caused  by  the  performances  of  the 

1  The  letter  is  printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  34-35. 
*  p.  18.  8  See  below,  pp.  93  ff. 


56 

players  in  the  City,  and  beseeching  his  aid  for  the  remedy  of  these 
abuses.  "Further,  because  Her  Majesty  must  be  served  at 
certain  times  by  this  sort  of  people,  she  had  granted  her  Letters 
Patent  to  Mr.  Tilney,  her  Master  of  the  Revels,  by  virtue  whereof 
he  had  authority  to  reform,  exercise  or  suppress  all  manner  of 
players,  plays  and  playhouses,  and  he  had  licensed  the  said 
houses,  which  before  had  been  open  to  the  Statutes  for  the  punish- 
ment of  such  disorders.  They  requested  his  Grace  to  call  the 
Master  of  the  Revels  before  him  and  treat  with  him  as  to  the 
measures  to  be  devised,  that  Her  Majesty  might  be  served  with 
these  recreations  as  she  had  been  accustomed,  which  might  easily 
be  done  by  the  private  exercise  of  Her  Majesty's  own  play- 
ers in  convenient  places,  and  the  City  freed  from  these  continual 
disorders."  1 

The  Archbishop  came  promptly  to  the  aid  of  the  City.  A  few 
days  later  the  Lord  Mayor  wrote  to  him,  thanking  him  for  the 
trouble  he  had  taken  for  removing  the  great  inconvenience  suf- 
fered by  the  municipality  through  the  increase  of  plays  and 
players.  "As  touching  the  consideration  to  be  made  to  Mr. 
Tilney  for  the  better  effecting  the  restraint  of  plays  in  and  about 
the  City,  a  certain  number  of  Aldermen  had  been  appointed  to 
confer  with  him  thereon."  2 

An  endeavor  to  raise  the  necessary  funds  for  this  "considera- 
tion" to  Mr.  Tilney,  appears  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Court  of 
the  Merchant  Taylors'  Company  a  few  days  afterward.  On 
March  23  they  discussed  a  "precepte"  from  the  Lord'  Mayor, 
which  called  attention  to  the  evils  of  plays  and  suggested  "the 
payment  of  one  Anuytie  to  one  Mr.  Tylney,  mayster  of  the 
Revelles  of  the  Queene's  house,  in  whose  hands  the  redresse  of 
this  inconveniency  doeth  rest,  and  that  those  playes  might  be 
abandoned  out  of  this  citie."  The  Court  sympathized,  but  "  way- 
inge  the  damage  of  the  president  and  enovacion  of  raysinge  of 
Anuyties  upon  the  companies  of  London,"  declined  to  unloose 
their  purse-strings.3  Whether  the  other  guilds  proved  more 
generous,  and  the  Mayor  was  enabled  to  buy  off  Tilney  from 

1  Remembrancia,  352.  2  Ibid.,  353. 

3  Chambers,  Tudor  Revels,  78,  quoting  C.  M.  Clode,  History  of  the  Merchant 
Taylors,  I,  236. 


57 

licensing  these  obnoxious  performances  in  the  City,  I  have  not 
discovered.  It  is  possible  that  some  such  arrangement  was 
actually  made  for  a  time,  for  during  the  next  three  years  there  are 
no  complaints  regarding  plays  within  the  city  limits. 

According  to  the  modern  code  Tilney's  methods  of  admin- 
istering his  office  at  this  juncture  may  appear  distinctly  improper ; 
but  I  doubt  if  they  were  considered  especially  questionable  at 
the  time.  It  was  natural  that  he  should  desire  to  make  as  much 
money  as  possible  from  his  licensing  business.  The  practice 
of  buying  oil  men  from  exercising  the  rights  granted  by  royal 
patents  apparently  existed  in  other  towns  than  London.  A 
somewhat  similar  case  is  found  in  Leicester  in  1579  and  1580, 
when  one  Johnson,  who  held  the  Queen's  commission  empower- 
ing him  to  collect  the  penalty  for  "unlawful  games,"  was  twice 
paid  20s.  by  the  Leicester  officials,  "  ffor  that  he  shoulde  not  deale 
wUlin  this  Towne."  l 

During  this  same  year  of  activity,  1592,  Tilney  was  receiving 
from  Henslowc,  manager  of  the  Rose,  payments  for  the  licensing 
of  plays  presented  by  Lord  Strange's  company  at  that  theater, 
—  apparently  for  seventeen  in  all,  between  February  26  and  June 
14.2  The  Rose  was  outside  the  city  limits,  and  probably  not 
included  in  any  arrangement  Tilney  made  with  the  London 
officials.  He  was  doubtless  licensing  plays  for  other  theaters 
as  well,  though  of  these  no  record  has  come  down  to  us. 

For  the  next  six  years  we  have  no  light  on  Tilney's  activity 
except  the  fragmentary  records  of  Henslowe's  payments  to  him 
found  in  the  Diary.  These  indicate  that  he  was  still  "  allowing" 
plays  and  that  he  was  also  licensing  playhouses.  On  January  2, 
1595,  Henslowe  gave  him  £10  in  payment  of  a  bond  and  other 
indebtedness;3  in  February,  1596,  he  noted  that  the  Master  was 
paid  "all  I  owe  him  until  this  time"  ; 4  and  between  April,  1596, 
and  February,  1598,  there  are  frequent  records  of  payments  of 
105.  per  week,  apparently  for  the  license  of  the  Rose,  —  showing 
that  Tilney  was  continuing  the  licensing  of  playhouses.5  In 
January,  1598,  there  is  a  payment  for  the  licensing  of  two  plays 

1  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  208-209. 

7  Henslcrue's  Diary,  12.     See  below,  p.  79.  3  Henslowe's  Diary,  p.  39. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  2S.  6  Ibid.,  40,  46,  54,  72.     See  below,  p.  73. 


58 

for  the  Lord  Admiral's  company.1  It  is  evident  that  Tilney's 
business  was  progressing  favorably. 

The  Privy  Council,  however,  did  not  yet  recognize  him  as  the 
person  through  whom  orders  regulating  the  drama  should  be 
transmitted,  for  on  January  28,  1593,  when,  because  of  the 
plague,  they  forbade  plays  in  and  about  London,  they  sent  their 
commands  only  to  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the  Justices  of  the  Peace 
of  Middlesex  and  Surrey.2  Nor  did  they  mention  the  Master,  so 
far  as  we  know,  in  granting  traveling  licenses,  in  the  spring  of  that 
year,  to  the  companies  of  the  Earl  of  Sussex  and  Lord  Strange.3 
He  does  not  appear,  moreover,  in  the  troubles  and  complaints  of 
1594  and  of  1597,  resulting  finally  in  the  order  —  never  enforced 
—  for  the  destruction  of  all  theaters.4 

But  in  1598  Tilney  appears  prominently.  The  order  of  the 
Privy  Council  concerning  plays  issued  on  February  19  of  that 
year  was  sent  to  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  as  well  as  to  the 
Justices  of  the  Peace  of  Middlesex  and  Surrey.  Two  companies, 
those  of  the  Lord  Admiral  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  had  been 
especially  authorized  by  the  Privy  Council  to  perform,  in  order 
that  they  might  prepare  themselves  properly  to  appear  as  usual 
before  the  Queen.  A  third  company,  the  Council  was  informed, 
"have  by  waie  of  intrusion  used  likewise  to  play,  having  neither 
prepared  any  plaie  for  her  Majestie,  nor  are  bound  to  you,  the 
Master  of  the  Revelles,  for  perfourming  such  orders  as  have  bin 
prescribed,  and  are  enjoyned  to  be  observed  by  the  other  two  com- 
panies before  mentioned."  The  Lords  therefore  order  that  this 
third  company  be  suppressed,  and  none  allowed  to  play  but  the 
Lord  Admiral's  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain's.5  The  case  is 
significant.  The  companies  used  for  court  performances  were 
evidently  granted  special  privileges,  —  amounting  to  a  monopoly 
of  playing.  As  in  the  case  of  the  patent  to  Leicester's  players 
in  1574,  in  return  for  these  favors,  they  were  bound  to  obey  the 
authority  of  the  Master.  The  Council  thus  guarded  against 
any  abuse  of  the  privileges  granted.  At  this  time  it  seems  likely 
that  the  players  had  actually  given  a  money  bond  as   surety 

1  Henslowe's  Diary,  83.  2  Acts,  XXIV,  31-32.  3  Ibid.,  200,  212. 

4  See  below,  pp.  187-188. 

1  Acts,  XXVIII,  327-328.  Fleay  conjectures  that  the  third  company  was 
Pembroke's.     {London  Stage,  158.) 


59 

for  their  obedience,  and  that  this  had  been  for  some  years  the 
practice  of  the  favored  companies.  Such  seems  the  most  prob- 
able explanation  of  the  entry  in  Henslowc's  Diary  on  January  2, 
1505.  in  the  form  of  a  receipt  signed  by  one  of  Tilney's  servants 
on  behalf  of  his  master,  acknowledging  Henslowc's  payment  of 
£10  "in  full  payment  of  a  bond  of  one  hundred  pounds," 
and  of  whatsoever  was  due  until  the  following  Ash  Wednesday.1 

The  other  payments  to  the  Master  of  the  Revels  noted  in 
Henslowc's  Diary  appear  to  be  also  in  behalf  of  privileged  com- 
panies,—  those  in  1592  for  Lord  Strange's,  which  performed 
at  Court  and  was  granted  a  special  warrant  by  the  Council  in 
1593 ;  and  in  1598  and  later  years  on  behalf  of  the  Lord  Admiral's 
players,  one  of  the  two  companies  granted  a  monopoly  of  per- 
formances in  and  about  London.2  We  find,  moreover,  that  in 
preparing  for  his  new  and  privileged  theater,  the  Fortune,  Hens- 
lowe  had  some  dealings  or  consultation  with  the  Master  of  the 
Revels,3  and  that  he  afterwards  paid  him  £$  a  month  for  the 
license  of  this  playhouse.4 

All  these  facts  seem  to  indicate  that,  though  the  Master's 
authority  extended  more  or  less  over  other  players  as  well,  the 
companies  enjoying  privileges  granted  by  the  Crown  were  espe- 
cially under  his  jurisdiction.  This  was  very  natural.  Even 
if  they  were  not  actually  "bound"  by  the  terms  of  their  patent 
or  warrant,  as  in  1574  and  1598,  they  would  obviously  be  in- 
clined to  obey  the  Crown  official.  Disobedience  might  result 
in  the  withdrawal  of  their  privileges,  and  their  exclusion  from 
the  court  performances,  which  the  Master  directed.  It  was  the 
necessary  preparation  for  these  appearances  before  the  Queen 
which  was  the  reason  alleged  for  granting  them  the  right  to  play 
in  public.  Under  the  Stuarts  also,  as  we  shall  see,  the  com- 
panies enjoying  royal  patents  were  especially  obliged  to  obey  y 
the  Master.5 

1  p.  39.  I  infer  from  this  that  part  of  the  £10  was  a  payment  on  the  bond, 
part  for  some  licensing  charges  for  performances  until  Lent. 

2  Henslowe's  Diary,  12,  83,  85,  90,  103,  109,  116,  117,  121,  129,  130,  132,  148, 
160,  161.  3  Ibid.,  158. 

*  Ibid.,   132,   160,   161.     For  further  discussion  of  Henslowe's  payments  to 
the  Master  of  the  Revels,  see  below,  pp.  73,  79  ff. 
&  See  below,  pp.  63-64 


60 

Besides  the  important  council  order  of  1598,  there  is  another 
reason  for  considering  that  year  a  significant  one.  When  Her- 
bert was  endeavoring  to  reestablish  the  Master's  jurisdiction 
after  the  Restoration,  he  based  his  claims  largely  on  the  prece- 
dent of  his  predecessors,  and  cited  the  names  of  certain  plays 
licensed  by  Tilney  in  1598,  implying,  apparently,  that  by  this 
date  the  Master  was  fully  established  as  censor.1 

From  henceforth  he  continued  to  exercise  over  the  stage  a 
general  jurisdiction,  which  grew  as  the  years  went  on.  In  1600 
we  find  that  he,  in  conjunction  with  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury and  the  Bishop  of  London,  had  arranged  a  treaty  between 
the  parish  of  St.  Saviour's  and  some  of  the  Bankside  theaters, 
whereby  the  players  were  to  contribute  money  for  the  parish 
poor.2  Before  issuing  their  orders  for  the  restriction  of  theaters 
and  plays  in  1600,  the  Privy  Council  had  evidently  consulted 
with  Tilney,  for  they  state  that  he  has  informed  them  —  wrongly, 
as  the  case  turned  out  —  that  the  new  Fortune  was  not  to  increase 
the  number  of  theaters,  but  was  to  take  the  place  of  the  Curtain, 
which  was  to  be  torn  down.3 

The  Master's  importance,  however,  was  not  yet  fully  estab- 
lished. In  the  theatrical  regulations  which  the  Council  now 
promulgated,  no  mention  was  made  of  his  authority.  The  Lord 
Mayor  and  the  Justices  of  Middlesex  were  ordered  to  enforce  the 
rules,  and  were  reproved  in  December,  1601,  for  their  laxness. 
In  March,  1601,  the  Mayor  was  commanded  to  suppress  plays  in 
Lent,  and  in  the  following  May  the  Justices  of  Middlesex  were 
directed  to  censor  plays  at  the  Curtain.4  Evidently  the  Master 
of  the  Revels  was  not  yet  considered,  as  he  was  later,  the  proper 
agent  to  carry  out  the  orders  of  the  Council  in  and  about  Lon- 
don. Probably,  however,  the  two  companies  granted  a  monop- 
oly by  the  order  of  1600  —  the  Lord  Admiral's  and  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  —  were  expected  to  obey  him.  We  know  indeed, 
as  I  have  already  mentioned,  that  he  was  being  regularly  paid 


1  1S21  Variorum,  III,  263,  note.  Possibly  Herbert  cites  1598  merely  because 
the  play-books  bearing  Tilney's  license,  which  were  in  his  possession  and  which 
were  offered  as  evidence,  happened  to  bear  this  date. 

2  Extract  from  the  Parish  Register,  in  Chalmers,  Apology,  405. 

3  Acts,  XXX,  395.  *  See  below,  pp.  190  ff. 


61 

for  a  license  for  playing  at  the  Fortune,  one  of  the  privileged 
theaters.1  The  Curtain,  where  the  Justices  were  ordered  to  cen- 
sor, was  not  occupied  by  one  of  the  privileged  companies,  and 
was  therefore  not  especially  under  the  Master's  jurisdiction. 

It  is  clear  that  by  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign  the  authority 
of  the  Revels  Office  over  performances  outside  the  Court  was 
fairly  well  established.  The  system  of  royal  patents  for  all 
important  companies  inaugurated  by  James,  and  the  concen- 
tration of  authority  in  the  Crown  by  the  statute  of  1604,  obvi- 
ously strengthened  the  Master's  position.  As  in  the  past,  the 
players  enjoying  special  privileges  from  the  King  naturally  obeyed 
the  Crown  officer  in  charge  of  dramatic  performances.  In 
many  of  the  royal  patents,  indeed,  a  special  proviso  was  inserted, 
reserving  all  the  rights  and  privileges  granted  to  the  Master  of 
the  Revels.2  He  now  advanced  rapidly  towards  the  position  of 
sole  censor  and  licenser  of  plays  in  and  about  London. 

In  the  first  few  years  of  James'  reign,  however,  his  exclusive 
authority  was  not  yet  unquestioned.  As  we  have  seen,3  the  royal 
patent  to  the  Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels,  in  January,  1604, 
provided  that  Samuel  Daniel  should  approve  all  plays  to  be 
given  by  that  company.  I  doubt  if  Daniel  exercised  this 
authority  to  any  extent.  Eastward  Hoe,  at  least,  presented  by 
these  players  about  a  year  later,  was  apparently  not  "allowed" 
at  all.  So  Chapman  implies  in  a  letter  to  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain, written  probably  during  his  imprisonment  because  of  the 
offensive  passages  in  that  play.4  His  words  suggest  also  that 
some  sort  of  direct  license  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain  was  some- 
times available.  "Of  all  the  oversights  for  which  I  suffer," 
writes  the  poet,  "none  repents  me  so  much  as  that  our  unhappie 
booke  w-as  presented  without  your  Lordshippes  allowance,  for 
which  we  can  plead  nothinge  by  way  of  pardon  but  your  Person 
so  farr  removed  from  our  requirde  attendance ;  our  play  so  much 
importun'de,  and  our  cleere  opinions,  that  nothinge  it  contain'd 
could  worthely  be  held  offensive."  5     Evidently  a  license  was 

'See  above,  p.  59.  2  See  below,  pp.  63-64.  3  p.  iq. 

*  Possibly  this  imprisonment,  as  I  shall  explain  later,  was  for  some  other 
offense,  and  the  play  presented  without  license  on  this  occasion  not  Eastward 
Hoe.     See  below,  pp.  101  ff. 

4  Letter  printed  in  Athenaum,  March  30,  1901. 


62 

not  considered  indispensable,  and  obviously  the  Master  of  the 
Revels,  who  is  not  mentioned,  was  not  yet  recognized  as  abso- 
lute censor  over  the  London  drama. 

The  extension  of  the  powers  of  the  office  was  apparently  has- 
tened by  the  granting  of  it,  in  reversion,  to  Tilney's  nephew,  Sir 
George  Buc,  who  soon  began  to  act  as  his  uncle's  Deputy.  The 
reversion  of  the  Mastership  had  been  promised  to  Buc  by  Eliza- 
beth in  1597,1  and  was  confirmed  by  James  I  in  a  formal  grant 
dated  June  23,  1603.  This  patent  recites  the  grant  of  the  office 
to  Tilney  in  1579,  and  the  terms  on  which  it  was  bestowed,  as  in 
Tilney's  patent  of  that  date;  it  next  expressly  appoints  Buc 
Master  of  the  Revels,  and  declares  that  his  term  of  service  is  to 
begin  upon  Tilney's  death,  resignation,  or  forfeiture  of  his  office. 
It  grants  all  rights,  privileges,  and  pay  as  in  the  patents  of  pre- 
ceding Masters  from  Cawarden  down.2  Apparently  no  further 
patent  of  appointment  was  necessary;  but,  by  virtue  of  this 
grant,  when  Tilney's  service  ceased  Buc's  immediately  began. 
A  "special  commission,"  like  that  granted  to  Tilney  in  1581,  con- 
ferring the  same  powers,  was  issued  to  Buc  on  the  same  date 
as  his  patent  of  reversion.3  This  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
he  was  even  then  —  in  1603  —  actively  engaged  in  the  manage- 
ment of  the  Office,  as  Tilney's  Deputy.  We  know  from  an 
entry  in  the  Stationers'  Register  that  he  was  certainly  acting  in 
that  capacity  on  November  21,  1606.4  From  the  same  source 
we  learn  that  Tilney  was  still  serving  as  Master  on  June  29, 
1607 ; 5  but  some  time  in  this  year  he  probably  ceased  to  perform 

1  Chambers,  Tudor  Revels,  57.  John  Lyly  had  hoped  for  the  Mastership, 
and  was  much  disappointed  by  the  promise  to  Buc.  On  Lyly's  relation  to  the 
Revels  Office,  see  Chambers,  op.  cit.,  57  ff. 

2  The  patent  is  printed  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  14-16. 

3  This  is  mentioned  by  Lysons  in  his  Environs  (1800-1811  edition),  I,  69, 
note,  among  other  items  from  the  Patent  Rolls,  as  a  "commission  to  George 
Buck  to  take  up  as  many  paynters,  embroiderers,  taylors,  &c.  as  he  shall  think 
necessary  for  the  office  of  the  Revels.  Pat.  1  Jac.  pt.  24.  June  23."  This  is 
obviously  another  patent  like  Tilney's  of  1581  and  Astley's  of  1622.  (See 
below,  p.  65.)  In  the  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1603-1610,  16,  it  is  catalogued  as  a 
"Commission  to  the  Master  of  the  Revels  to  take  up  workmen  and  stuff," 
under  the  date  of  June  21,  1603.  Probably  this  is  the  Privy  Seal,  and  the  two 
patents  under  the  Great  Seal  —  this  and  the  reversionary  grant  —  were  issued 
on  June  23. 

'Arber,  Transcript,  III,  333.  *  Ibid.,  354. 


63 

his  duties,  for  Buc  is  referred  to  as  Master  of  the  Revels  in  the 
edition  of  Camden's  Brittania  printed  at  that  date.1  By  Octo- 
ber 4,  moreover,  Scgar  was  acting  as  Buc's  Deputy,2  —  a  fact 
which  would  indicate  that  Buc  was  now  Master.  As  late  as 
March  2,  160S,  however,  the  warrants  for  the  payments  of  ex- 
penses in  the  Revels  Office  were  made  out  in  Tilney's  name.3 
In  1610,  at  all  events,  his  death  left  Buc  in  undisputed  possession 
of  the  Office.4 

Buc  was  a  man  of  literary  interests,  author  of  various  writings, 
including  a  treatise  entitled  The  Third  University  of  England 
and  some  commendatory  verses  prefixed  to  Watson's  Hekatom- 
pathia.  He  apparently  took  his  office  very  seriously,  for  he 
wrote,  as  he  himself  tells  us,  a  long  and  "  particular  commentary" 
on  the  ''Art  of  Revels,"  —  unfortunately  lost.5  His  energy  and 
interest  are  apparent  in  the  extension  of  the  powers  of  the  Revels 
Office.  Evidently  he  desired  to  have  more  explicit  authority 
over  the  companies  patented  by  the  Crown,  and  to  make  sure 
that  their  privileges  should  not  weaken  his  rights.  The  earliest 
patents  of  James'  reign  do  not  mention  the  Master;  but  that 
granted  in  1606  to  the  Prince's  company  contains  the  following 
proviso :  — 

"Provided  ahvaies,  and  our  wyll  and  pleasure  ys,  that  all  auctoritie, 
power,  priviledges,  and  profittes  whatsoever,  belonging  and  properlie 
appertaining  to  the  Maister  of  our  Revells,  in  respect  of  his  office, 
and  everie  clause,  article,  or  graunt  contained  within  the  letters 
patent,  or  commission,  which  have  heretofore  byn  graunted  or  directed 
by  the  late  Queene  Elizabeth,  our  deere  sister,  or  by  ourselves,  to 
our  welbeloved  servantes,  Edmonde  Tilney,  Maister  of  the  Office  of 
our  saide  Revells,  or  to  Sir  George  Bucke,  Knight,  or  to  either  of  them, 
in  possession  or  reversion,  shall  be,  remayne,  and  abide  entire  and 
in  full  force,  estate,  and  vertue,  and  in  as  ample  sorte  as  yf  this  our 
commission  had  never  been  made."6 

A  similar  proviso  is  contained  in  the  patents  granted  in  1609 
to  the  Queen's  company,7  in  1610  to  the  Duke  of  York's,8  and  in 

1  1821  Variorum,  III,  57,  note.  2  Arber,  Transcript,  III,  391. 

3  Stale  Papers,  Dom.,  1603-1610,  391,  410.  *  Ibid.,  652. 

6  See  Chambers,  Tudor  Revels,  59,  note. 
8  Shakspere  Society  Papers,  IV,  43.  7  Ibid.,  46.  8  Ibid.,  48. 


64 

1613  to  the  Elector's.1  According  to  Sir  Henry  Herbert's  claims, 
there  was  a  like  clause  in  those  issued  in  1620  and  in  1630-1631.2 
It  is  noteworthy  that  none  of  the  three  patents  to  the  King's 
company  —  in  1603,  1619,  and  1625  —  contains  such  a  proviso. 
Possibly  these  players,  as  members  of  the  royal  household,  were 
so  obviously  under  the  Master's  authority  that  no  specific  men- 
tion of  it  was  necessary.  Sometimes  the  Master's  approval  was 
sought  before  the  issuing  of  a  patent,  as  in  161 5,  when  Buc  wrote 
to  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  secretary,  consenting  to  the  proposed 
patent  for  Daniel  "as  being  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of 
his  ornce."  3 

While  thus  securing  his  rights  over  the  patented  companies, 
Buc  was  extending  his  licensing  power  in  various  ways.  Without 
any  specific  authority,  so  far  as  we  know,  he  began  in  1606  to 
license  plays  for  printing,  and  nearly  all  the  dramas  entered  in  the 
Stationers'  Register  during  the  next  thirty  years  were  authorized 
by  the  Revels  Office.4  Buc  also  penetrated  to  other  fields  besides 
the  drama,  and  found  profit  in  authorizing  various  kinds  of 
shows.  In  1610,  for  example,  he  licensed  three  men  '"to  shew 
a  strange  lion  brought  to  do  strange  things,  as  turning  an  ox 
to  be  roasted." 5  Tilney  had  long  before  received  monthly 
payments  for  licenses  for  established  theaters ;  but  Buc  advanced 
to  the  extent  of  selling  a  permit  for  the  erection  of  a  new  theater 
within  London  —  in  Whitcfriars  —  a  transaction  for  which  he 
received  £20  in  1613.6  These  scattered  facts  which  have  come 
down  to  us  show  the  development  of  the  Master's  jurisdiction. 
From  the  quotations  from  his  Office  Book  made  by  Herbert, 
and  the  surviving  manuscripts  showing  his  license  to  act,  we 
know  that  he  was  continuing  to  censor  and  license  plays  for 
performance. 

On  April  3,  161 2,  Sir  John  Astley,  or  Ashley,  was  granted  the 
reversion  of  the  Mastership,  in  a  patent  like  Buc's  of  1603,  to 
take  effect  on  the  latter's  death  or  withdrawal  from  office.7 
On  October  5,  162 1,  a  similar  reversionary  grant  was  made 

1  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  45. 

1  Halliwcll-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  93.     See  Appendix. 

3  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1611-1618,  294.  *  See  below,  pp.  84  ff. 

'  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1603-1610,  631.  *  1S21  Variorum,  III,  52,  note. 

7  Printed  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  11-13. 


65 

to  Ben  Jonson,  who  was  to  serve  on  the  death  of  both  Buc  and 
Astley,  but  who,  dying  before  the  latter,  never  profited  by  his 
appointment.1  In  1622  Buc,  old  and  enfeebled  in  mind,  ceased 
to  act,2  and  Astley  took  up  the  office.  Buc  died  on  September 
22,  1023.  On  May  22,  1622,  a  special  commission  was  given  to 
Astley,  precisely  like  that  granted  to  Tilney  in  1581,3  and  in 
November  the  Lord  Chamberlain  issued  a  "Declaration  of  the 
Ancient  Powers  of  the  Office."  We  know  of  this  latter  document 
only  from  Herbert's  mention  of  it  after  the  Restoration.4  Pre- 
sumably it  resembled  the  declaration  made  by  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain at  this  later  date,  notifying  all  Mayors,  Justices,  and  other 
officials  that  no  players  or  other  showmen  should  be  allowed  to 
perform  without  a  license  from  the  Revels  Office.5 

Astley  acted  as  Master  for  only  a  few  months.  In  July,  1623, 
Sir  Henry  Herbert  purchased  the  office  from  him  for  £150  per 
year; 6  and  in  the  next  month,  as  he  tells  us,  was  "received"  by 
the  King  as  Master  of  the  Revels.7  James,  that  is,  apparently 
recognized  and  approved  the  transfer  of  the  office.  As  Mr.  Fleay 
plausibly  suggests,8  the  change  in  the  form  of  entry  in  the  Revels 
Office  Book  indicates  that  on  July  27,  1623,  Herbert  was  in 
charge.  On  September  3  Astley  for  the  last  time  licensed  a  play 
for  printing.9  From  henceforth  until  the  Civil  War  Herbert  was 
in  undisputed  possession  of  the  office,  and  officially  recognized 
as  Master  of  the  Revels.     Nevertheless,  Astley  was  technically 

1  See  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  39  ff.  There  was  also  a  rever- 
sionary grant  of  the  office,  apparently,  to  William  Painter,  on  July  29,  1622,  to 
take  effect  after  Jonson's.     State  Papers,  Dom.,  1619-1623,  432. 

2  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1619-1623,  366. 

3  Printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  52-56.  It  is  not  a  patent  of  appoint- 
ment, as  Hazlitt  states,  but  a  grant  of  special  powers  to  the  man  who  is  already 
Master,  and  who  is  mentioned  as  such  in  the  opening  of  this  patent.  In  the 
State  Papers  the  date  is  given  as  May  6.  (State  Papers,  Dom.,  1619-1623,  386.) 
The  reversionary  grant  was  the  patent  of  appointment.  A  Privy  Seal  was  also 
issued  on  May  22,  1622,  directing  the  payment  of  certain  Revels  funds  to  Astley, 
and  announcing  that  Buc  was  incapable,  because  of  sickness,  of  performing  his 
duties,  and  that  the  Mastership  had  been  conferred  on  Astley.  See  Collier, 
English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  403-405. 

*  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  91.  s  Ibid.,  59. 

6  Cunningham,  Revels  Accounts,  xlix.     See  also  Chalmers,  Apology,  495,  note. 

7  Warner,  Epistolary  Curiosities,  I,  3,  note. 

8  London  Stage,  301,  310.  •  Arber,  Transcript,  IV,  103. 

F 


66 

Master  until  his  death  on  January  13,  1641.  In  1629  a  rever- 
sionary grant  of  the  office  had  been  made  to  Herbert  and  Simon 
Thelwall  jointly,  and  by  virtue  of  this  they  came  formally  and 
technically  into  possession  on  Astley's  death.1 

This  rather  confused  history  of  grants  is  of  comparatively  little 
importance  from  our  point  of  view,  but  the  facts  of  Herbert's 
administration,  which  lasted  from  July,  1623,  until  the  outbreak 
of  the  Civil  War,  and  technically  for  some  years  after  the  Resto- 
ration, are  of  the  greatest  significance.  Sir  Henry  Herbert  was 
of  a  noble  and  famous  family,  brother  to  George  Herbert  and  to 
Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury,  and  kinsman  to  William  Herbert, 
Earl  of  Pembroke,  Lord  Chamberlain  from  161 7  to  1630,  and 
to  his  brother  and  successor  in  that  office,  Philip  Herbert,  Earl 
of  Pembroke  and  Montgomery.  This  connection  with  his 
chiefs,  the  Lord  Chamberlains,  was  doubtless  of  great  advantage 
to  Sir  Henry.  The  survival  of  portions  of  Herbert's  Office 
Book  or  Register,  and  the  declarations  made  by  him  after  the 
Restoration,  when  he  was  endeavoring  to  reestablish  his  rights, 
reveal  to  us  many  of  the  workings  of  the  Office  in  a  vivid  and 
detailed  manner  which  we  can  never  hope  to  realize  in  the  years 
of  Tilney  and  Buc.2  During  Herbert's  administration  the  Mas- 
tership was  at  the  height  of  its  power  and  importance.  This 
seems  the  fitting  time,  therefore,  to  expound  in  detail  the  or- 


1  See  the  history  of  these  grants  given  by  Herbert  in  his  suit  for  the  reestablish- 
ment  of  his  jurisdiction  after  the  Restoration.  {Dramatic  Records,  39-42.) 
It  is  noteworthy  that  he  bases  his  claims  on  these  patents  of  appointment,  —  all 
in  terms  of  the  grant  to  Cawarden, — and  that  he  does  not  cite  the  "special 
commissions,"  such  as  Tilney's  of  1581  and  Astley's  of  1622.     See  also  ibid.,  60. 

2  Sir  Henry's  Office  Book,  often  referred  to  as  MS.  Herbert,  was  found  in  the 
same  chest  with  the  MS.  Memoirs  of  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury.  It  contained, 
Malone  tells  us,  "  an  account  of  almost  every  piece  exhibited  at  any  of  the 
theatres  from  August,  1623,  to  the  commencement  of  the  Rebellion."  {1821 
Variorum,  III,  57,  note.)  Malone  and  Chalmers  made  use  of  this  precious  doc- 
ument, but  its  whereabouts  is  now  unknown.  As  it  was  already  in  a  molder- 
ing  condition  when  seen  by  Malone,  it  has  perhaps  since  perished  entirely. 
The  extracts  from  it  given  by  Chalmers  and  Malone  are  of  the  greatest  value. 

Buc's  Office  Book,  we  learn  from  Herbert,  was  burned.  (Chalmers,  Supple- 
mental Apology,  203,  note.) 

Many  of  the  documents  concerning  Herbert's  suits  after  the  Restoration  are 
printed  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  and  some  in  1S21  Variorum, 
III. 


67 

gani/.ation  and  operation  of  the  Office,  so  far  as  it  dealt  with  the 
regulation  of  the  drama. 

The  Revels  Office,  since  early  in  its  history,  had  included, 
besides  the  Master,  a  Clerk  Comptroller,  a  Clerk,  a  Yeoman, 
and  various  subordinate  officers.  These  were  concerned  with 
the  making  and  care  of  costumes  and  properties,  the  purchasing 
of  supplies,  and  other  details  of  the  management  of  court  enter- 
tainments. Materials  were  stored  and  the  work  carried  on  in  a 
building  especially  devoted  to  the  Revels.  The  Office  moved 
frequently,  being  located  at  various  times  in  Warwick  Inn,  the 
Charterhouse,  Blackfriars,  the  Priory  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem 
in  Clerkenwell,  and  St.  Peter's  Hill,  Doctor's  Commons.  The 
officers  were  paid  regular  fees  according  to  their  patents,  and 
besides  these  were  given  various  wages  and  allowances  and  an 
official  residence.  The  Master's  fee,  as  specified  in  his  patent, 
was  £10  a  year,  but  this  represented  only  a  small  fraction  of  his 
perquisites.  Tilney  received  an  extra  recompense  of  £100  a 
vear,  and  though  this  was  apparently  not  continued  to  the  later 
Masters,  they  were  allowed  very  considerable  sums  for  extra 
attendance,  "diet,"  lodgings,  and  various  expenses.1 

With  all  the  intricacies  of  the  Revels  Accounts  and  the  internal 
workings  of  the  Office,  we  are  not  here  concerned.  The  sub- 
ordinate officials  just  mentioned  appear  to  have  confined  them- 
selves to  their  original  function,  —  the  preparation  of  court  en- 
tertainments. The  Master  succeeded  in  keeping  in  his  own 
hands  the  more  profitable  side  of  his  business,  —  the  licensing 
of  public  performances.  In  this  he  was  assisted  by  his  Deputy, 
who  occasionally  read,  censored,  and  "allowed"  plays  in  place 
of  his  chief ;  and  in  an  humbler  degree  by  Messengers  of  the 
Office  and  by  his  personal  servants,  who  collected  fees  for  him 
and  carried  his  orders  to  the  players.  Sometimes  he  was  served 
also  by  "Messengers  of  the  Chamber,"  who  summoned  for  him 
recalcitrant  actors. 

As  the  government  official  especially  in  charge  of  the  stage, 
the  Master  was  recognized  as  the  proper  person  to  transmit  to 
the  players  the  commands  of  the  King  and  the  Privy  Council. 

1  See  Chambers,  Tudor  Revels,  67  ff.,  and  Warner,  Epistolary  Curiosities, 
I,  180,  182. 


68 

For  example,  when  the  deaths  from  the  plague  rose  high,  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  sent  to  Herbert  an  order  for  the  suppres- 
sion of  plays  in  London,  and  he  in  turn  despatched  his  messenger 
to  the  various  companies,  bearing  his  "warrants"  for  their  cessa- 
tion. Such,  at  least,  was  the  procedure  in  1636,  and  we  may 
assume  that  it  was  the  usual  one.1  Similarly,  when  the  Council 
issued  its  orders  for  the  closing  of  the  theaters  in  Lent,  these  were 
"signified"  to  the  players  by  the  Master.2  When  the  higher 
authorities  were  displeased  at  the  content  of  plays,  they  some- 
times acted  through  the  Master;  as  in  161 7,  when  the  Coun- 
cil bade  him  prevent  the  representation  of  a  play  concerning  the 
Marquess  d'Ancre;3  and  in  1640,  when  the  King  commanded 
Herbert  to  suppress  and  punish  the  performance  of  an  unli- 
censed play  which  reflected  on  his  Majesty.4  But  when  the 
Master  had  licensed  a  play  of  which  the  Council  afterwards  dis- 
approved, they  sometimes  acted  over  his  head,  arrested  the 
players,  and  called  him  to  account  for  his  indiscretion.  A 
striking  case  of  this  sort  is  that  of  the  Game  at  Chess,  in  1624.5 

Besides  transmitting  the  orders  of  his  superiors,  the  Master 
exercised  extensive  authority  on  his  own  initiative.  His  power 
to  license  players  remained  always  somewhat  ill  defined.  There 
is  no  clear  case  of  his  ever  licensing  actors  for  performances  in 
and  about  London.  The  patented  companies  who  held  a  prac- 
tical monopoly  of  the  drama  in  that  city  may  have  made  it  worth 
his  while  to  refrain  from  any  invasion  of  their  exclusive  privileges. 
Or  perhaps  direct  royal  authority  was  considered  necessary  for 
any  such  intrusion.  The  French  company  which  performed 
in  London  in  1635  had  special  royal  permission.8  Possibly  the 
same  favor  was  shown  to  the  French  players  in  1629,  who  paid 
Herbert  fees  for  performances.7  Concerning  the  "company  of 
strangers"  who  appeared  in  1623,  we  know  little.8 

The  litigation  regarding  Herbert's  claims  after  the  Restoration 
bears  out  this  view  of  the  limitation  of  his  jurisdiction,  —  that 

1  1821  Variorum,  III,  239. 

2  Extract  from  the  Council  Register  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I, 
380,  note. 

3  See  below,  p.  113.  4  See  below,  p.  132.  8  See  below,  pp.  no  ff. 
6 1S21  Variorum,  III,  121-122,  note.     ''Ibid.,  120,  note.    8  See  below,  p.  77. 


69 

is,  that  his  license  alone  was  not  sufficient  for  players  performing 
in  London.  In  a  list  of  the  points  to  be  proved  he  notes,  "to 
prove  the  Licensinge  of  Playhouses  and  of  Playes  to  Acte," 
and  "  to  prove  the  suppressingeof  Players  and  their  Obedience"  ; ' 
but  apparently  does  not  claim  the  right  to  license  players  who  have 
no  previous  commission.  On  several  occasions  after  the  Resto- 
ration the  question  of  Herbert's  jurisdiction  came  up  in  court, 
and  at  one  of  these  trials,  before  a  London  jury,  "  the  Master  of 
Revels  was  allowd'  the  correction  of  Plaics  and  Fees  for  soe 
docing ;  but  not  to  give  Plaiers  any  licence  or  authoritie  to  play, 
it  being  provd'  that  no  Plaiers  were  ever  authorizd'  in  London  or 
Westminster,  to  play  by  the  Commession  of  the  Master  of  the 
Revels;   but  by  authoritie  immediately  from  the  Crowne."  2 

To  the  London  companies  patented  by  the  King,  however, 
the  Master  of  the  Revels  sold  other  licenses  of  various  sorts. 
He  seems  to  have  issued  to  them  special  traveling  commissions, 
which  were  probably  renewed  yearly.  There  was  an  entry,  at 
least,  in  Herbert's  Register,  of  his  granting  to  the  King's  com- 
pany on  July  i,  1625,  a  "confirmation  of  their  patent  to  travel 
for  a  year." 3  When  some  of  the  actors  of  the  privileged 
companies  got  together  a  temporary  organization  for  touring 
purposes,  it  is  probable  that  they  generally  secured  a  special 
commission  from  the  Master.1 

Herbert  sold  to  the  established  companies  also  licenses  of  a 
different  sort,  —  "warrants  of  protection,"  such  as  the  Master 
was  authorized,  by  his  "special  commissions,"  to  issue  to  men 
employed  in  his  Majesty's  Revels.5  A  copy  of  such  a  warrant 
issued  on  December  27,  1624,  gives  a  list  of  more  than  a  dozen 
names,  and  certifies  that  these  men  are  all  employed  by  the 
King's  Majesty's  servants  —  that  is,  the  King's  company  —  as 
musicians  and  other  necessary  attendants  during  the  time  of  the 
Revels ;  "  in  which  tyme  they  nor  any  of  them  are  to  be  arested, 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  26.  2  Ibid.,  48-49. 

3  Chalmers,  Supplemental  Apology,  185,  note.  Chalmers'  reference  here  to 
Rymer's  Fcedera  is  to  a  copy  of  King  Charles'  patent  to  the  King's  company  of 
June  24,  1625. 

4  See  such  a  commission  from  the  Master's  chief,  the  Lord  Chamberlain, 
mentioned  above,  p.  39. 

5  See  above,  p .51. 


70 

or  deteyned  under  arest,  imprisoned,  Press'd  for  Souldiers  or 
any  other  molestacion  Whereby  they  may  bee  hindered  from 
doeing  his  Majesties  service,  without  leave  firste  had  and  ob- 
teyned  of  the  Lord  Chamberlyne  of  his  Majesties  most  honorable 
household,  or  of  the  Maister  of  his  Maiesties  Revells.  And  if 
any  shall  presume  to  interrupt  or  deteyne  them  or  any  of  them 
after  notice  hereof  given  by  this  my  Certificate  hee  is  to  aunswere 
itt  att  his  vtmost  perill.     H.  Herbert."  l 

It  was  doubtless  a  similar  warrant  that  Herbert  meant  when 
he  entered  in  his  Register  on  April  9,  1627,  "  For  a  warrant  to  the 
Musitions  of  the  king's  company  .  .  .  £1."  2 

Though  his  authority  to  license  unpatented  players  in  Lon- 
don remained  doubtful,  the  Master's  right  to  license  any  travel- 
ing actors  for  performances  throughout  the  country  seems  to 
have  been  well  established.  We  have  seen  an  example  of  its 
exercise  under  Tilney  in  1583.3  At  Leicester  in  1623  a  company 
"that  did  belong  to  the  Mr  of  the  Revells"  was  paid  for  not 
playing.  In  1626  players  appeared  there  "going  about  with  a 
Pattent  from  the  Mr  of  the  Revells";  in  1630  came  three  com- 
panies "with  a  commission  from  the  Master  of  the  Revells"; 
and  in  1639,  "the  servants  of  the  Master  of  the  Revells."4 
Among  the  entries  of  strange  shows  extracted  by  Chalmers 
from  Herbert's  Register,  are  some  which  indicate  annual  li- 
censes of  this  sort  to  traveling  players:  "a  warrant  to  Francis 
Nicolini,  an  Italian,  and  his  Company,  'to  dance  on  the  ropes, 
to  use  Interludes  and  Masques,  and  to  sell  his  powders  and  bal- 
sams'; to  John  Puncteus,  a  Frenchman,  professing  Physick, 
with  ten  in  his  Company,  to  exercise  the  quality  of  playing,  for 
a  year,  and  to  sell  his  drugs."  5  Had  we  still  Herbert's  complete 
Register,  we  could  doubtless  find  many  better  examples  of  annual 
licenses  to  traveling  companies. 

An  interesting  case  illustrative  of  the  Master's  jurisdiction  in 
such  matters  appears  immediately  after  the  Restoration.     On 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  16. 

2 1S21  Variorum,  112.     Malone  interprets  the  entry  as  "an  annual  fee  for  a 
license  to  play  in  the  theatre." 
3  See  above,  p.  53. 

*  Kelly,  Drama  in  Leicester,  under  the  years  cited. 
'  Chalmers,  Supplemental  Apology,  209,  note. 


71 

October  8,  1660,  the  Mayor  and  the  Recorder  of  Maidstone  wrote 
to  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  notifying  him  of  the  arrival  in  that  town 
of  several  players  bearing  his  commission.  The  municipal 
officials  appear  to  be  somewhat  ignorant  of  the  laws  governing 
the  drama,  now  that  the  Puritan  prohibition  is  relaxed.  They 
inform  Herbert  that  they  do  not  question  his  license  to  these 
players  "so  farre  as  they  shall  use  the  same  according  to  lawe, 
to  which  your  license  cloth  prudently  and  carefully  tye  them. 
One  particular  of  which  theyre  lawfull  exercise  we  conceive  to  be 
within  the  verge  of  his  Majesties  courtc,  wherever  it  shall  be,  in 
any  parte  of  England,  where  they  may  be  under  your  eye  and  care, 
for  the  reforminge  and  regulating  any  abuses  of  their  license, 
which  might  be  committed  by  them.  But  we  do  not  finde  that 
you  doe,  and  presume  you  did  not  intend  to,  grant  them  a  licence 
to  wander  abroade  all  England  over,  at  what  distance  soever 
from  you."  The  writers  next  cite  the  Statute  39  Elizabeth, 
permitting  noblemen's  companies,  as  the  rule  which  they  are 
following,  and  refuse  to  grant  further  license.1 

Sir  Henry  was  indignant  at  such  a  rebellion  against  his  au- 
thority. On  the  following  day  he  replied  sternly  to  the  Mayor 
of  Maidstone.  His  license,  he  declares,  "is  granted  upon  the 
conditions  of  good  behaviour  to  the  lawes  and  ordinances  of 
superiors."  But  while  the  players  bear  themselves  properly, 
the  Mayor  has  no  right  to  suppress  them.  "You  are  the  first 
Mayor  or  other  officer,  that  did  ever  dispute  the  authority,  or 
the  extent  of  it ;  for  to  confine  it  to  the  verge  of  the  Court,  is 
such  a  sense  as  was  never  imposed  upon  it  before,  and  contrary 
to  the  constant  practice ;  for  severall  grantes  have  been  made  by 
me,  since  the  happy  restoration  of  our  gracious  sovereign,  to 
persons  in  the  like  quality;  and  seriously,  therefore,  admitted 
into  all  the  counties  and  liberties  of  England,  without  any  dis- 
pute or  molestation."  Herbert  requires  the  Mayor  to  permit 
the  men  to  perform,  according  to  their  license,  and  threatens,  if 
he  refuses,  to  summon  him  to  Court,  to  answer  for  his  "dis- 
obedience to  his  Majesties  authority  derived  unto  me  under  the 
great  scale  of  England."     To  show  the  peril  of  questioning  the 

1  The  letter  is  printed  in  full  in  Warner,  Epistolary  Curiosities,  I,  59-60. 


72 

power  of  the  Revels  Office,  he  even  hints  that  the  Mayor  has 
endangered  the  charter  of  his  corporation.1 

These  claims  of  Sir  Henry's,  coupled  with  what  we  know  of 
his  practice  before  the  Civil  War,  indicate  that  the  Master  clearly 
had  the  right  to  license  traveling  companies  for  performances 
throughout  the  kingdom,  and  that  such  a  commission  from  him 
was  superior  to  the  authority  of  local  officials,  who  had  no  right 
to  refuse  the  bearers  of  it  permission  to  play.  Concerning  the 
extent  to  which  he  exercised  this  power  and  the  price  for 
which  he  sold  such  commissions,  we  have  at  present  no  infor- 
mation. 

It  is  apparent  from  the  extracts  cited  above,  showing  per- 
mission for  rope  dancing  and  even  the  sale  of  drugs,  that  the 
Master  did  not  confine  his  traffic  to  the  "legitimate"  drama 
alone.  All  sorts  of  showmen  were  authorized  by  him.  From 
Chalmers'  quotations  from  the  Register  we  learn  of  licenses  for 
"making  show  of  an  Elephant";  for  "a  live  Beaver";  for  an 
"outlandish  creature  called  a  Possum";  for  two  Dromedaries; 
for  a  Camel ;  for  a  "  Showing  Glass,  called  the  World's  Wonder" ; 
for  a  "  Musical  Organ,  with  divers  motions  in  it"  ;  for  "  tumbling 
and  vaulting,  with  other  tricks  of  slight  of  hand"  ;  for  "certain 
freaks  of  charging  and  discharging  a  gun";  for  teaching  the 
art  of  music  and  dancing;  and  for  a  show  of  pictures  in  wax.2 
Some  of  these  are  mentioned  as  licenses  for  the  space  of  a  year ; 
others  as  being  issued  gratis;  and  for  one  the  price  received  is 
given.  The  Dutchman  who  obtained  the  license  "to  show  two 
Dromedaries  for  a  year  "  paid  one  pound. 

The  business  of  licensing  such  shows  must  have  been  a  profit- 
able one,  for  the  Master  and  his  Deputy  made  great  efforts  to 
develop  it.  After  the  Restoration,  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  among 
suggestions  for  the  confirmation  and  extension  of  the  powers  of 
the  Revels  Office,  desired  that  it  should  have  jurisdiction  over 
all  dancing  schools,  "wakes  or  rural  feasts,"  and  lotteries,  and 
should  even  have  the  right  to  license  "gaming"  contrary  to  the 
law.3    He  seems  to  have  claimed  authority  also  over  billiards, 


1  Warner,  Epistolary  Curiosities,  I,  61-63. 

2  Chalmers,  Supplemental  Apology,  208-209,  note. 

3  Warner,  Epistolary  Curiosities,  I,  185-187. 


73 

ninepins,  and  cock-fighting,1  —  anything,  in  fact,  over  which  his 
jurisdiction  could  possibly  be  stretched,  and  the  licensing  of 
which  might  be  a  source  of  profit. 

He  tried  also  to  make  his  licensing  power  an  exclusive  one, 
necessary  to  all  showmen  in  the  kingdom.  In  1661  Herbert 
secured  from  the  Lord  Chamberlain  an  order  addressed  to  all 
Mayors,  Sheriffs,  and  Justices  of  the  Peace  throughout  the 
realm,  declaring  that  any  persons  in  any  city,  borough,  town  cor- 
porate, village,  hamlet,  or  parish,  acting  or  presenting  any 
"play,  show,  motion,  feats  of  activitie  and  sights  whatsoever," 
without  a  license  now  in  force  under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the 
Master  of  the  Revels,  must  have  their  grants  or  licenses  taken 
from  them  and  sent  to  the  Revels  Office;  and  that  all  plays  or 
shows  must  be  suppressed  until  approved  and  licensed  by  Sir 
Henry  Herbert  or  his  Deputy.2  We  find  the  Revels  Office  try- 
ing to  enforce  this  wide  authority  two  years  later.  On  July  23, 
1663,  one  of  the  Messengers  of  the  Office  was  despatched  to 
Bristol,  where  fairs  were  to  be  held,  there  to  investigate  all 
showmen  whatsoever,  and  see  that  they  had  commissions  from 
the  Revels,  or  that  such  as  had  not,  paid  a  proper  fee  or  gave  a 
bond  for  their  future  obedience.3  How  extensively  the  Master 
had  enforced  such  rights  over  the  provinces  before  the  Civil 
War,  it  is  impossible  at  present  to  ascertain. 

The  facts  concerning  the  Master's  licensing  of  playhouses  are 
not  entirely  clear.  In  Tilney's  time,  as  we  have  seen  from  the 
entries  in  Henslowe's  Diary,  it  appears  that  he  received  a  regular 
sum  for  the  licensing  of  established  theaters,  which  increased 
from  ten  shillings  a  week  in  1596, 1597,  and  1598,  to  three  pounds 
a  month  in  1599  and  later  years.4  In  1601  the  three  pounds  per 
month  is  specified  as  a  payment  for  the  Fortune  theater.5  Sir 
George  Buc  ventured  on  a  more  radical  exercise  of  power,  — 
the  granting,  in  16 13,  of  a  license  to  erect  a  new  playhouse  in 
Whitefriars,  then  part  of  the  City  of  London.6     For  this  he 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  53-56,  59-60. 
1  Ibid.,  42-44.  5  Ibid.,  50-51. 

*  Henslowe's  Diary,  40,  46,  54,  72,  129,  130,  132,  160,  161;  Henslowe  Pa- 
pers, 58. 

1  Henslowe's  Diary,  132,  160.  '  See  below,  p.  146. 


74 

received  ^o.1  Sir  Henry  Herbert  copied  this  entry  from  Buc's 
Office  Book  into  his  own,  apparently  to  serve  as  a  precedent 
for  similar  licenses  in  future,  and  after  the  Restoration  he 
specifically  claimed  the  right  to  grant  permission  to  erect  play- 
houses.2 But  we  have  no  record  of  the  Master's  ever  having 
exercised  this  right  except  in  the  single  case  of  the  new  White- 
friars  theater  in  1613. 

Under  Herbert  the  regular  monthly  fees  for  licenses  for  exist- 
ing playhouses  were  apparently  no  longer  paid,  —  possibly  be- 
cause the  London  theaters  were  specifically  named  and  per- 
formances in  them  authorized  by  the  royal  patents  to  the  favored 
companies.  Instead  of  these  payments,  Herbert  received  from 
the  players  other  sums,  on  which  we  get  some  light  from  his 
claims  after  the  Restoration  and  the  extracts  from  his  Register. 
In  1628  the  King's  company,  he  tells  us,  "with  a  general  consent 
and  alacrity,"  arranged  to  give  him  two  benefit  performances  a 
year,  one  in  summer  and  one  in  winter,  "to  be  taken  out  of  the 
second  day  of  a  revived  play,  at  his  own  choice."  For  five 
years  and  a  half  this  arrangement  continued,  netting  Herbert, 
on  an  average,  £8  195.  4J.  from  each  performance.  In  1633  a 
change  was  made,  the  managers  of  the  company  agreeing  to  pay 
him  the  fixed  sum  of  £10  every  Christmas  and  the  same  at  Mid- 
summer, in  lieu  of  his  two  benefits.3  When  Herbert  was  assert- 
ing his  claims  in  1662,  he  declared  that  his  profit  from  each  of 
the  benefit  performances  amounted  to  £50,  —  an  astonishing 
multiplication  of  his  actual  receipts  which  it  is  hard  to  under- 
stand.4 Corresponding  to  this  alleged  profit  from  the  King's 
company  was  the  payment  from  the  other  actors  noted  by 
Herbert  as,  "  For  a  share  from  each  company  of  four  companyes 
of  players  (besides  the  late  Kinges  Company),  valued  at  a^ioo 
a  yeare,  one  yeare  with  another,  besides  the  usuall  fees."  5 

There  were  other  payments  alleged,  in  addition  to  this  very 
considerable  sum.  For  a  "  Christmas  fee,"  Herbert  asserted,  he 
received  £3,°  and  the  same  for  a  "Lenten  fee."  7     Concerning 

1 1821  Variorum,  III,  52,  note.  5  Ibid.,  246-248. 

3  Ibid.,  176-178.  *  Ibid.,  266.  'Ibid. 

9  Possibly  it  was  necessary  for  the  companies  to  pay  this  for  permission  to  play 
in  the  Christmas  season.  7  1S21  Variorum,  III,  266. 


75 

this  second  item,  we  gain  further  information  from  his  Office 
Book.  Performances  in  Lent  were  prohibited  by  order  of  the 
Privy  Council,  as  we  find  from  numerous  entries  in  the  Council 
Register.1  In  1615,  for  example,  representatives  of  the  five 
companies  were  summoned  before  the  Lords  to  answer  "for 
playing  in  this  prohibited  time  in  Lent,  notwithstanding  the 
Lord  Chamberlain's  commandment  signified  to  them  by  the 
Master  of  the  Revels."  2  But  by  the  purchase  of  a  special  license 
or  dispensation  from  the  Master,  it  was  possible  for  the  players 
to  perform  as  usual,  except  on  the  "sermon  days,"  as  they  were 
called,  —  that  is,  on  Wednesday  and  Friday.3  Herbert  copied 
into  his  Register  extracts  from  Buc's  Office  Book,  showing  the 
latter's  practice  in  such  cases.  In  161 7,  we  find,  the  Master 
received  445.  from  the  King's  company  "for  a  lenten  dispensa- 
tion, the  other  companys  promising  to  doe  as  muche."  *  Under 
Herbert  the  price  of  these  Lenten  dispensations  appears  to 
have  been  generally  £2.  Such  is  the  sum  noted  for  the  Cockpit 
company  in  1624,  and  for  the  King's  company  in  1626.5  Other 
shows  gained  the  allowance  at  a  cheaper  rate,  apparently;  for 
the  "dancers  of  the  ropes"  at  the  Fortune,  in  1625,  paid  only  one 
pound.6  Possibly  the  price  rose  later,  or  Herbert's  claim  after 
the  Restoration  of  £3  as  the  regular  fee  may  be  another  of  his 
exaggerations. 

When  the  French  company  so  much  favored  by  the  King 
and  the  Queen  appeared  in  London  in  1635,  the  King  com- 
manded Herbert  that  they  should  be  allowed  to  play  "the  two 
sermon  days  in  the  week,  during  their  time  of  playing  in  Lent," 
and  as  a  result  of  this  special  privilege  they  took  in  the  sum  of 
£200.  At  Herbert's  intercession  for  them  the  King  granted 
also  that  they  might  "have  freely  to  themselves  the  whole  week 

1  See  below,  pp.  210-21 1. 

s  Extract  from  the  Council  Register,  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I, 
380,  note.  Thompson  {Puritans  and  Stage,  155)  says  that  about  this  time  the 
Master  of  the  Revels  was  forbidden  to  grant  any  more  Lenten  dispensations; 
but  I  find  no  evidence  of  this.  Indeed,  it  seems  probable  that  his  sale  of  these 
dispensations  may  have  resulted  from  this  rigorous  action  by  the  Council. 
Apparently  it  began  two  years  later,  in  161 7.  This  date,  at  least,  is  that  of  the 
first  case  quoted  by  Herbert  as  a  precedent. 

3 1821  Variorum,  III,  65,  note.  *  Ibid. 

•  Ibid.,  66,  note.  9  Ibid. 


76 

before  the  week  before  Easter,"  —  a  favor  which  so  pleased  them 
that  they  offered  the  Master  a  present  of  £10.  "But  I  refused 
itt,"  noted  Herbert,  "and  did  them  many  other  curtesys  gratis, 
to  render  the  queene  my  mistris  an  acceptable  service."  *  The 
Frenchmen  did  not  escape,  however,  without  some  contribution 
to  the  Revels  Office,  for  it  appears  from  a  later  entry  that  they 
gave  Sir  Henry's  Deputy  "three  pounds  for  his  paines."  2  Such 
relaxation  of  the  law  against  Lenten  performances  was  naturally 
distasteful  to  the  Puritans.  Prynne,  we  find,  refers  to  it  in  his 
Histriomastix  in  1632.3 

The  Master  of  the  Revels  was  also  able  at  times  to  secure  for 
the  players  some  relaxation  of  the  orders  against  performances 
in  plague  time,  or  to  hasten  the  opening  of  the  theaters  as  the 
infection  subsided.  In  June,  163 1,  Herbert  received  from  the 
King's  company  the  profit  on  a  performance  of  Pericles  at  the 
Globe,  amounting  to  £3  10s.  od.,  "for  a  gratuity  for  their 
liberty  gaind  unto  them  of  playinge,  upon  the  cessation  of  the 
plague."4  Other  "occasional  gratuities,"  as  Herbert  called 
them,  helped  to  swell  his  income.  One  profitable  contribution 
of  this  sort  we  find  in  his  Office  Book:  on  July  17,  1626, 
three  pounds  "from  Mr.  Hemmings,  for  a  courtesy  done  him 
about  their  Blackfriars  house."  5  Besides  such  gratuities  on 
various  occasions,  Herbert  had  also,  as  he  later  asserted,  "a 
box  gratis"  at  each  of  the  theaters.6 

One  of  the  most  considerable  sources  of  revenue  for  the  Mas- 
ter was  that  derived  from  the  exercise  of  his  most  important 
function,  the  censorship  and  licensing  of  plays.  He  became 
sole  censor  of  the  drama  in  and  about  London;  his  was  the 
responsibility  of  seeing  that  nothing  was  performed  in  any 
way  seditious  or  offensive  to  the  authorities.  No  play,  new  or 
old,  could  be  presented  —  theoretically,  at  least  —  without  his 
permission. 

During  the  early  years  of  Herbert's  administration,  it  seems 
possible  that  his  authority  as  licenser  of  plays  sometimes  extended 
only  over  the  privileged  companies.     In  1623  we  find  a  puzzling 

1  1821  Variorum,  III,  121,  note.  '  Ibid.,  122,  note. 

s  p.  784.     1821  Variorum,  III,  66,  note.  *  Ibid.,  177,  note. 

6  Ibid.,  229.  e  Ibid.,  266. 


77 

entry  in  his  Register,  stating,  according  to  Malone,  that  the 
play,  Come  See  a  Wonder,  "written  by  John  Dayc  for  a  company 
of  strangers,"  was  acted  at  the  Red  Hull  and  licensed  without 
his  hand  to  it,  because  they  —  that  is,  this  company  of  strangers 
—  were  none  of  the  four  companies.1  Who  else  could  have 
licensed  the  play  is  not  apparent,  —  the  Lord  Chamberlain, 
possibly;  and,  in  the  absence  of  further  information,  the  entry 
is  hard  to  understand.  The  French  company  which  appeared 
in  1629  was  apparently  subject  to  the  Master's  orders;  for 
twice  he  received  from  them  £2  for  the  right  of  playing  one  day; 
and  on  a  third  occasion  he  remitted  half  this  fee,  "in  respect 
of  their  ill  fortune."  2 

Over  the  patented  companies,  at  all  events,  Sir  Henry  exer- 
cised a  strict  jurisdiction.  Their  performance  of  any  play  with- 
out his  license  was  a  serious  offense,  as  we  learn  from  the  very 
humble  submission  tendered  to  him  by  the  King's  company  in 
1624,  when  they  had  offended  in  this  way. 

"To  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  Kl.  master  of  his  Ma."8*  Revells. 

"After  our  humble  servise  remembered  unto  your  good  worship, 
Whereas  not  long  since  we  acted  a  play  called  The  Spanishe  Viceroy, 
not  being  licensed  under  your  worships  hande,  nor  allowed  of:  wee 
doe  confess  and  herby  acknowledge  that  wee  have  offended,  and  that 
it  is  in  your  power  to  punishe  this  offense,  and  are  very  sorry  for  it; 
and  doe  likewise  promise  herby  that  wee  will  not  act  any  play  with- 
out your  hand  or  substituts  hereafter,  nor  doe  any  thinge  that  may 
prejudice  the  authority  of  your  office:  So  hoping  that  this  humble 
submission  of  ours  may  bee  accepted,  wee  have  therunto  sett  our 
hands."  3 

The  Master  had  the  right  to  suppress  a  play  at  any  time. 
Upon  any  complaint  concerning  one,  he  was  accustomed  to 
order  its  withdrawal  from  the  stage  until  he  was  satisfied  that 
nothing  offensive  had  been  introduced,  or  it  was  changed  to  suit 
his  judgment. 

The  methods  which  he  followed  in  exercising  his  censorship 
we  can  trace  in  some  detail.  From  Tilney's  time  onward,  as 
we  know  from  his  "indenture"  of  1583,4  and  from  surviving 

1  1821  Variorum,  III,  224.  2  Ibid.,  120,  note. 

3  Ibid.,  209-210.  *  See  above,  p.  53. 


78 

manuscripts,  it  was  customary  for  the  book-keeper  of  the  com- 
pany to  submit  to  him  a  copy  of  the  play  before  its  performance, 
that  he  might  read  it  at  his  leisure.  He  demanded  that  this 
should  be  a  "fair  copy,"  *  and  complained  at  times  of  the  illegi- 
bility of  the  manuscripts.2  The  Master  went  over  the  play -book 
with  care,  striking  out  or  altering  single  words  and  whole  passages, 
and  noting  in  the  margin  that  certain  objectionable  scenes  must 
be  radically  changed.3  He  then  indorsed  on  the  manuscript 
his  license  to  act. 

"This  Second  Maydens  Tragedy  (for  it  has  no  name  inscribed) 
may  with  the  reformacions  bee  acted  publikely.  31.  October.  1611. 
G.   Buc."  4 

"This  Play  called  ye  Seamans  honest  wife,  all  ye  Oaths  left  out  in 
the  action  as  they  are  crost  in  ye  booke  &  all  other  Reformations 
strictly  observed,  may  bee  acted,  not  otherwise.  This  27th  June, 
1633.     Henry  Herbert."  5 

In  such  words  the  license  was  given.  Sometimes  the  Master's 
Deputy  made  the  corrections  and  wrote  the  permission,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Lady  Mother,  licensed  by  Blagrave  in  163 5.° 

Though  the  custom  was  evidently  not  consistently  followed, 
Herbert  desired  that  copies  of  the  plays  should  be  left  with 
the  Master,  "that  he  may  be  able  to  shew  what  he  hath 
allowed  or  disallowed."  7  He  could  thus  defend  himself  against 
blame  for  improper  interpolations  made  later  by  the  actors,  as 
in  the  case  of  Jonson's  Magnetic  Lady,  when  the  players  at 
first  "would  have  excused  themselves,"  says  Herbert,  "on 
mee  and  the  poett";  but  afterwards  confessed  that  they  them- 
selves were  to  blame  for  the  interpolations.8  It  was  naturally 
difficult  for  the  Master  to  keep  track  of  what  was  actually  said 
at  the  performances.  He  directed  the  company's  book-keeper 
to  make  the  alterations  in  the  actors'  parts  which  he  had  in- 
dicated on  the  play-book ;  and  declared  that  the  players  ought 
not  to  study  their  roles  until  the   text  had    been    allowed.9 

1  Bullen,  Old  Plays,  II,  432.  2  Chalmers,  Supplemental  Apology,  217. 

3  On  the  nature  of  his  corrections,  see  below,  pp.  93  ff.,  109  fT.,  114  ff. 
*  See  below,  p.  109.  s  Bullen,  Old  Plays,  II,  432.  8  Ibid.,  200. 

7 1S21  Variorum,  III,  208.  8  Ibid.,  233.  g  Ibid.,  208-210. 


79 

But  there  must  have  been  much  carelessness  in  carrying  out 
these  rules  and  many  opportunities  for  interpolations  by  the 
actors. 

The  fee  received  by  the  Master  for  the  licensing  of  a  play 
varied  during  the  period.  Under  Tilney,  as  we  learn  from 
Henslowe's  Diary,  it  was,  in  1592,  55.,  then  6s.,  and  later  65.  8J.1 
In  the  years  1 598-1600,  the  fee  was  uniformly  75.  a  play.2 

This  seems  to  be  the  most  fitting  place  for  a  discussion  of 
these  entries  in  Henslowe's  Diary.  There  is  little  doubt  that 
they  were  actually  payments  to  the  Master  for  licenses  to  act 
certain  plays.  The  first  group  of  entries  is  perhaps  the  most 
dubious.  It  is  a  series  of  payments  "to  Mr.  Tilney's  man," 
occurring  about  once  a  week  from  February  26  to  June  14,  1592 ; 
always  for  55.  until  May  13,  when  the  sum  is  125.,  —  presumably 
for  two  plays;  and  on  the  three  occasions  after  that,  for  65.  8d. 
As  Lord  Strange's  company  began  to  perform  at  Henslowe's 
theater,  the  Rose,  on  February  19,  and  continued  until  June  22 
of  this  year,  it  seems  most  probable  that  these  payments  were 
for  licensing  plays. 

The  later  entries  are  scattered  here  and  there  through  the 
Diary,  and  are  in  some  such  form  as,  "Paid  unto  the  Master 
of  the  Revels'  man  for  the  licensing  of  a  book,  75."  These 
have  been  generally  considered  licenses  for  performance,  but 
Mr.  Fleay  asserts :  "The  instances  are  far  too  few  to  allow  of 
this  interpretation.  It  meant  licensing  for  the  press  indepen- 
dently of  the  Stationers'  Company."  3  This  appears  very  im- 
probable. It  is  not  until  1606  that  we  have  definite  evidence 
of  the  Master's  licensing  for  printing,  and  his  authorization  was 
then  regularly  entered  on  the  Stationers'  Register.4  Moreover, 
it  is  very  unlikely  that  Henslowe  would  desire  to  have  the  plays 
licensed  for  printing,  —  especially  so  soon  after  they  were  writ- 
ten. In  two  cases  where  the  name  of  the  play  is  given,  the 
license  was  purchased  only  about  a  month  after  the  author  was 
paid  for  his  work.5  The  well-known  objection  of  players  to 
the  publication  of  their  plays  is  here  illustrated  by  Henslowe's 

1  Henslowe's  Diary,  12.  '  Ibid.,  83,  85,  90,  103,  109,  116,  117,  131. 

'  London  Stage,  107.  *  See  below,  pp.  84  ff. 

1  Henslowe's  Diary,  120,  121. 


80 

entry  of  a  gift  of  40s.  on  March  18,  1600,  to  the  printer  "to  stave 
the  printing  of  patient  grissel."  ' 

The  smallness  of  the  number  of  licenses,  on  which  Mr.  Fleay 
bases  his  assertion,  is  easily  explained.  In  the  first  place  many 
of  the  payments  were  doubtless  entered  on  the  pages  of  the  Diary 
which  are  now  missing,  and  others  were  perhaps  not  entered 
at  all.  Henslowe's  accounts  were  kept  in  a  chaotic  manner,  and 
the  entries  we  have  appear  to  have  survived  casually  in  groups. 
The  fact  that  he  made  payments  to  the  Master  which  do  not 
appear  in  the  Diary  is  shown  by  his  noting,  on  February  27, 1596, 
"the  master  of  the  Revelles  payd  untell  this  time  al  wch  J  owe 
hime,"  2  whereas  there  are  no  entries  of  any  payments  to  Tilney 
for  a  year  preceding  this ;  and  also  by  the  appearance  of  one  of 
the  Revels  receipts  among  the  Henslowe  Papers.3  Moreover, 
it  seems  that  it  was  not  always  Henslowe's  duty,  as  manager  of 
the  theater,  to  pay  for  such  licenses  for  performance,  but  that 
this  financial  obligation  sometimes  rested  on  the  company. 
There  are  several  entries  in  a  form  something  like  this:  "Lent 
unto  the  company  to  pay  unto  the  Master  of  the  Revels  for  the 
licensing  of  two  books."  *  When  the  company  did  not  borrow 
the  fee  from  Henslowe,  their  payment,  of  course,  would  not 
appear  in  his  accounts.  Finally,  Mr.  Fleay  himself  remarks, 
in  discussing  these  licenses  for  printing  —  as  he  considers 
them:  "It  is  curious  that  in  every  instance  where  Henslowe 
gives  a  play-name  the  play  is  non-extant."  5  That  is,  the  plays 
were  probably  never  printed.6 

In  view  of  all  this,  and  also  the  fact  that  we  know  Tilney  was 
licensing  plays  for  performance  at  this  time,  and  in  the  absence 
of  support  for  Mr.  Fleay's  assertion,  it  seems  most  likely  that 
these  entries  in  Henslowe's  Diary  were  payments  for  licenses 
to  act  certain  plays. 

1  Henslowe's  Diary,  no.  2  Ibid.,  28.  3  Henslowe  Papers,  58. 

4  Henslowe's  Diary,  83,  148.  The  term  "book,"  it  should  be  said,  has  no 
reference  to  a  printed  volume,  but  is  the  usual  word  for  a  play. 

6  London  Stage,  107. 

*  It  might  perhaps  be  suggested  that  these  printing  licenses  were  bought 
with  no  intention  of  publication,  but  merely  to  gain  a  sort  of  copyright  and  thereby 
forestall  others  who  might  secure  a  license  and  actually  print  the  plays.  This 
does  not,  however,  seem  probable. 


81 

By  the  time  Herbert  took  office,  the  regular  fee  for  licensing 
a  new  play  had  apparently  risen  to  one  pound.  This  was  the 
sum  he  received  from  the  King's  company  on  April  10,  1624, 
for  Davenport's  History  of  Jinny  the  'First}  In  cases  where 
he  had  exceptional  trouble  with  the  corrections,  he  was  some- 
times paid  double  this  sum,  as  on  January  2,  1624,  for  the  His- 
tory of  the  Duchess  of  Suffolk,  "which  being  full  of  dangerous 
matter  was  much  reformed  by  me,"  notes  Herbert.  "I  had 
two  pounds  for  my  pains."  2  Apparently  this  larger  sum  after- 
wards became  the  regular  price.  In  1632  he  received  it  for 
Jonson's  Magnetic  Lady,3  and  in  1642  for  several  plays.4  After 
the  Restoration  he  succeeded  in  establishing  his  claim  to  £2 
as  the  regular  fee  for  a  new  play.5 

Herbert  held  that  the  payment  was  not  for  licensing  the  play, 
but  for  his  trouble  in  reading  it  over.  When  he  refused  to 
license  Massinger's  Believe  As  You  List,  in  163 1,  because  of 
its  "dangerous  matter,"  he  entered  in  his  Office  Book,  "I  had 
my  fee  notwithstanding,  which  belongs  to  me  for  reading  itt 
over,  and  ought  to  be  brought  always  with  the  booke."  6  And 
in  June,  1642,  he  noted  thus  briefly  a  transaction  which  must 
have  been  somewhat  irritating  to  the  players:  "Received  of 
Mr.  Kirke,  for  a  new  play  which  I  burnte  for  the  ribaldry  and 
offense  that  was  in  it,  £2.  o.  o."  7 

On  the  revival  of  old  plays,  it  was  generally  necessary  to  get 
the  Master's  approval ;  but  there  was  at  first  apparently  no  fee 
paid,  especially  if  the  players  still  had  the  copy  bearing  the  former 
authorization.  On  August  19,  1623,  Herbert  notes:  "For  the 
King's  players.  An  olde  playe  called  Winter's  Tale,  formerly 
allowed  of  by  Sir  George  Bucke,  and  likewyse  by  mee  on  Mr. 
Hemmings  his  wrord  that  there  was  nothing  profane  added  or 
reformed,  thogh  the  allowed  booke  wras  missinge;  and  there- 
fore I  returned  it  without  a  fee."  8  A  little  later  Herbert  seems 
to  have  felt  that  some  present  to  him  was  fitting  when  he  allowed 
an  old  drama  of  which  the  original  license  was  lost.     He  notes 

1  1821  Variorum,  III,  229.  2  Chalmers,  Supplemental  Apology,  217,  note. 

5  1821  Variorum,  III,  231.  *  Ibid.,  240-241. 

1  Ibid.,  266;    Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  36,  37. 

8 1821  Variorum,  III,  231.  ''Ibid.,  241.  8  Ibid.,  229. 

G 


82 

in  February,  1625,  that  "an  olde  play  called  The  Honest  Mans 
Fortune,  the  originall  being  lost,  was  re-allowed  by  mee  at  Mr. 
Taylor's  intreaty,  and  on  consideration  to  give  mee  a  booke."  l 

In  1633  Herbert  became  convinced  that  greater  care  was 
necessary  in  the  supervision  of  old  plays.  The  Tamer  Tamed 
was  revived  by  the  King's  company  in  October  of  that  year; 
whereupon  complaint  was  made  to  the  Master  that  it  contained 
"foul  and  offensive  matters."  Herbert  ordered  the  suppression 
of  the  play  and  sent  for  the  book,  to  find  that  the  accusation  was 
justified  and  the  Tamer  Tamed  indeed  much  in  need  of  "refor- 
mation." In  the  account  of  the  affair  in  his  Register  he  declares 
that  "all  ould  plays  ought  to  bee  brought  to  the  Master  of  the 
Revels,  and  have  his  allowance  to  them  for  which  he  should  have 
his  fee,  since  they  may  be  full  of  offensive  things  against  church 
and  state ;  ye  rather  that  in  former  time  the  poetts  took  greater 
liberty  than  is  allowed  them  by  mee."  2  This  rule  he  now  ap- 
pears to  have  put  into  force,  for  in  the  following  month  he  received 
from  the  King's  company  one  pound  for  Fletcher's  Loyal  Sub- 
ject, licensed  by  Buc  in  1618  and  now  "perused  and  with  some 
reformations  allowed  of  "  by  Herbert.3  One  pound  apparently 
became  the  Master's  regular  fee  for  a  revived  play.  He  claimed 
this  after  the  Restoration  and,  though  its  legality  was  questioned, 
was  for  a  time  successful  in  establishing  it.4 

Though  the  Master  claimed  the  exclusive  right  of  censoring 
and  licensing  plays  throughout  the  kingdom,5  it  is  not  probable 
that  he  exercised  this  at  all  rigorously  outside  of  London.  Prac- 
tically all  plays  of  any  importance  must  have  been  performed 
first  at  the  capital.  It  would  scarcely  have  been  possible  or 
profitable  for  him  to  enforce  his  censorship  over  all  the  insig- 
nificant local  productions  throughout  England. 

The  Master's  possession  of  the  power  of  forbidding  the  per- 
formance of  any  play  apparently  led  to  his  occasional  interference 

1  1821  Variorum,  III,  229.  Malone  states  —  on  what  authority  does  not 
appear  —  that  the  book  given  was  the  Arcadia.  Were  it  not  for  this  assertion, 
one  might  imagine  that  Herbert  was  referring  to  a  copy  of  the  play-book. 

2 1S21  Variorum,  III,  208-210.  See  below,  pp.  124  ff.  3 1821  Variorum, 
III,  234. 

*  Ibid.,  266;   Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  36,  37,  49. 

6  See  above,  pp.  53,  73. 


83 

to  prevent  a  company  from  stealing  a  drama  bclonging-to-ethcr 
actors.  Though  the  players  or  manager  who  purchased  a  play 
from  its  author  seem  to  have  had  a  property  right  in  it,  there 
was  difficulty  in  enforcing  this,  except  by  careful  guarding  of  all 
copies  of  the  play-book,  so  that  none  might  be  available  for  per- 
formance by  others.  This  was  an  urgent  reason,  of  course,  for 
avoiding  the  printing  of  plays.  Probably  the  prominent  Lon- 
don companies  had  some  agreement  binding  them  to  respect  each 
other's  property;  but  at  times  of  hostility  between  the  theaters 
thefts  of  plays  occasionally  occurred.  About  1600,  for  example, 
the  Chapel  Children  appropriated  the  Spanish  Tragedy,  belong- 
ing to  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  company;  and  in  1604  the  latter, 
then  the  King's  men,  in  retaliation  took  the  boys'  Malcontent.1 
The  simplest  way  of  avoiding  such  thefts  was  for  a  company 
to  get  the  Master  to  forbid  the  performance  of  its  plays  by  others. 
In  1627,  four  years  after  the  publication  of  the  First  Folio  had 
made"  Shakspere's-draTrras  easily  available,  the  King's  company_ 
paid  Herbert  the  considerable  sum  of  five  pounds  "to  forbid  I 
the  playing  of  Shakespeare's  plays  to  the  Red  Bull  company."  2 
How  frequently  the  Master's  authority  was  invoked  in  such 
cases  we  do  not  know.    ~^~ 

In  1639  his  superior  officer,  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  interfered 
on  a  somewhat  similar  occasion.  William  Beeston's  company 
of  the  "King's  and  Queen's  young  players,"  performing  at  the 
Cockpit  theater  in  that  year,  were  anxious  to  have  confirmed  their 
exclusive  right  to  certain  plays,  many  of  which  they  seem  to 
have  inherited  from  the  Queen's  company,  who  had  previously 
occupied  the  Cockpit.  Beeston  was  able  to  secure  from  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  an  edict  forbidding  the  acting  of  these  plays 
by  other  companies.  This  document  gives  a  list  of  the  dramas, 
"all  of  which  are  in  his  propriety,"  and  requires  all  masters  and 
governors  of  playhouses  in  and  about  London  to  forbear  to 
intermeddle  with  them,  "as  they  tender  his  Majesty's  displeas- 
ure." 3     Possibly  the  authority  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  was 

1  See  Small,  Stage  Quarrel,  115;  Fleay,  English  Drama,  II,  78;  Bullen's 
Marston,  I,  203. 

2  1821  Variorum,  III,  229. 

5  The  edict  is  printed  in  Chalmers,  A pology,  516,  and  in  1821  Variorum,  III,  159. 


84 

used    on    other    similar    occasions     to    protect     the    King's 
players. 

A  new  source  of  revenue  for  the  Master  of  the  Revels  was 
developed  in  the  extension  of  his  licensing  power  over  the  print- 
ing as  well  as  the  performance  of  plays.  Under  the  Injunctions 
of  1559,  regulating  the  censorship  of  the  press  in  London,  it 
was  necessary  for  all  "pamphlets,  plays  and  ballads"  to  be 
licensed  before  printing  by  three  Commissioners  for  Religion.1 
But  in  practice  the  license  was  generally  given  by  the  Master 
and  Wardens  of  the  Stationers'  Company,2  —  a  custom  which 
persisted  to  a  considerable  extent  in  later  years.  A  Star  Cham- 
ber decree  in  1586  constituted  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
/  and  the  Bishop  of  London  sole  censors  and  licensers  of  all  printed 
books;  and  in  1588  the  Archbishop  delegated  this  authority  to 
several  licensers.3  There  was  evidently  some  laxness  in  carrying 
out  the  rule,  for  on  June  1,  1599,  the  Archbishop  and  the  Bishop 
reminded  the  Stationers'  Company  that  no  plays  should  be  printed 
"excepte  they  bee  allowed  by  such  as  have  aucthorytie."  4 

Sir  George  Buc  appears  to  have  been  the  one  who  first  thought 
of  extending  the  Master's  powers  in  this  direction.  Without 
any  especial  authority  from  the  Crown  or  the  Lord  Chamberlain, 
so  far  as  we  know,  but  merely  as  a  natural  part  of  his  duties  as 
general  regulator  of  the  drama,  he  began  to  license  plays  for 
printing.  On  November  2 1 ,  1606,  Buc  appears  in  the  Stationers' 
Register  as  licenser  of  the  Fleare,  a  comedy.5  Several  plays 
are  then  entered  under  other  license;  but  on  April  10,  1607, 
Buc  appears  again,  and  from  now  on  until  161 5  every  play  except 
two  was  entered  under  the  license  of  the  Master  or  his  Deputy. 
He  had  evidently  almost  established  his  authority  as  sole  censor 
of  printed  plays.     But  as  Buc's  energy  waned  with  his  advancing 

1  Arber,  Martin  Marprelate  Controversy,  49_5°- 

2  Ibid.,  51-52.  3  Ibid.,  50-51. 
*  Arber,  Transcript,  III,  677.     The  most  convenient  account  of  the  censorship 

of  the  press  at  this  period  is  in  Arber,  Martin  Marprelate  Controversy,  as  cited 
above.  Additional  facts  may  be  found  in  his  Transcript,  I,  xxxviii;  III,  15  ff., 
690;  IV,  26  ff. 

1  Mr.  Fleay  has  tabulated  in  convenient  form  {Life  of  Shakespeare,  328  ff.)  all 
the  plays  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register,  indicating  the  name  of  the  licenser 
in  the  case  of  those  allowed  by  the  Master  or  his  Deputy. 


85 

years,  the  administration  of  the  Revels  Office  apparently  grew 
'  lax,  and  a  considerable  number  of  plays  appeared  under  other 
license.  As  Herbert  developed  his  business,  however,  he  rees- 
tablished this  authority,  and  from  1628  to  1637  he  or  his  Deputy 
licensed  every  play  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register.  After 
January  29,  1638,  the  Revels  license  appears  no  more,  —  per- 
haps as  a  result  of  Archbishop  Laud's  new  regulations  concern- 
ing the  censorship  of  the  press.1 

In  some  cases  the  Master  extended  his  authority  over  the 
licensing  of  books  of  poetry  as  well  as  plays.  Two  interesting 
entries  in  Herbert's  Office  Book  show  receipts  from  this  new 
branch  of  his  business.  In  October,  1632,  he  received  "from 
Henry  Seyle  for  allowinge  a  booke  of  verses  of  my  Lord  Brooks, 
entitled  Religion,  Humane  Learning,  Warr,  and  Honor  .  .  . 
in  mony  1/.  os.  o</.,  in  books  to  the  value  of  1/.  45.  od. ";  and 
also  "more  of  Seyle,  for  allowinge  of  two  other  small  peeces  of 
verses  for  the  press,  done  by  a  boy  of  this  town  called  Cowley, 
at  the  same  time  .  .  .  o/.  105.  od."  2  This  new  business  was 
not  without  its  drawbacks,  however.  In  the  following  month, 
on  November  14,  1632,  Sir  Henry  wras  summoned  before  the 
Star  Chamber,  "by  the  King's  command  delivered  by  the 
Bishop  of  London,"  to  "give  account  why  he  warranted" 
Donne's  Paradoxes  to  be  printed.3 

During  the  latter  part  of  our  period,  as  we  shall  presently 
'  see,  the  Lord  Chamberlain  frequently  acted  directly  in  cases  of 
trouble  in  the  dramatic  world,  without  reference  to  his  subordi- 
nate, the  Master  of  the  Revels.  In  1637  we  find  him  exercising 
his  authority  over  the  press.  Difficulties  had  arisen  from  the 
printing  of  plays  belonging  to  the  King's  and  the  Queen's  com- 
panies, without  their  consent.  The  Earl  of  Pembroke  and  Mont- 
gomery, then  Lord  Chamberlain,  consequently  addressed  an 
edict  to  the  Stationers'  Company,  ordering  them  not  to  allow 
the  printing  of  any  dramas  belonging  to  these  actors,  without 
first  ascertaining  whether  they  consented  to  the  publication. 

'See  Arber,  Transcript,  III,  15,  16. 

'  1821  Variorum,  III,  231,  note.  See  also  Chalmers,  Supplemental  Apology, 
209,  note. 

1  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1631-1633,  437. 


86 

He  refers  to  a  similar  order  by  his  predecessor,  which  has  been 
disregarded.1 

/  After  the  Restoration  efforts  were  made  by  the  Revels  Office 
to  continue  the  licensing  for  the  press.  Hay  ward,  who  had  pur- 
chased the  Deputyship  from  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  and  was  finding 
his  bargain  an  unprofitable  one,  was  especially  anxious  to  in- 
crease his  income  from  this  source.2  An  interesting  document 
of  July  25,  1663,  entitled  "Arguments  to  proue  that  the  Master 
of  his  Maiesties  Office  of  the  Revells,  hath  not  onely  the  power 
of  Lycencing  all  playes,  Poems,  and  ballads,  but  of  appointing 
them  to  the  Press,"  shows  the  wide  jurisdiction  claimed  and  the 
attempted  justification  therefor. 

"That  the  Master  of  his  Maiesties  office  of  the  Revells,  hath  the 
power  of  Lycencing  all  playes  whether  Tragedies,  or  Comedies  before 
they  can  bee  acted,  is  without  dispute  and  the  designe  is,  that  all  pro- 
phaneness,  oathes,  ribaldry,  and  matters  reflecting  upon  piety,  and 
the  present  governement  may  bee  obliterated,  before  there  bee  any 
action  in  a  publique  Theatre. 

"The  like  equitie  there  is,  that  all  Ballads,  songs  and  poems  of 
that  nature,  should  pass  the  same  examinacion,  being  argued  a  Ma- 
jore  ad  Minus,  and  requiring  the  same  antidote,  because  such  things 
presently  fly  all  over  the  Kingdom,  to  the  Debauching  and  poisoning 
the  younger  sort  of  people,  unles  corrected,  and  regulated. 

"The  like  may  bee  said  as  to  all  Billes  for  Shewes,  and  stage  playes, 
Mountebankes,  Lotteries  &c.  because  they  all  receive  Commissions 
from  the  Master  of  the  Revells  who  ought  to  inspect  the  same,  that 
their  pretences  may  agree  with  what  is  granted  by  their  Commissions, 
otherwise  many  of  them  may  Divide  their  Companies  and  by  way  of 
cheat  (as  hath  beene  vsuall)  make  one  Commission  serve  for  two 
Companies,  if  not  for  three. 

"Now  from  the  premisses,  it  may  bee  concluded  but  rationall,  that 
hee  who  hath  the  power  of  allowing  and  Lycencing  (as  the  Master 
hath)  should  likewise  bee  authorised  to  appoint  and  order  the  press, 
least  after  such  examination  and  allowance,  alterations  should  bee 
made,  and  the  abuse  proue  a  scandall  and  reflection  vpon  the  Master, 
and  therefore  all  sober,  considerate  persons  must  from  the  premisses 
conclude,  that  the  ordering  of  the  Press  doth  of  right  belong  to  the 

1  The  edict  of  1637  is  printed  in  Chalmers,  Apology,  513-514,  note  ;  and  in 
1821  Variorum,  III,  160-161,  note.  I  have  found  no  other  cases  of  interference 
by  the  Master  or  the  Lord  Chamberlain  to  prevent  the  printing  of  a  company's 
plays  against  its  will. 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  53-56,  58,  60. 


87 

Master  of  the  Revells;  and  in  order  to  the  regulating  of  this  business, 
and  to  make  it  knowne  to  the  world,  that  not  onely  the  power  of  it, 
but  the  care  of  well  ordering,  bounding  and  correcting  all  vnsavoury 
words,  and  vnbecomming  expressions,  (not  fitt  to  bee  Lycenced  in 
a  christian  Commonwealth,)  belongeth  solely  and  properly  to  the 
Master  of  the  Revells,  all  Poetts  and  Printers,  and  other  persons 
concerned,  are  to  take  notice,  after  this  manifestation  shall  come  out, 
or  a  precept  Drawne  from  thence,  bee  sent  vnto  them  that  they  and 
every  of  them  doe  for  the  future,  forbeare  their  poetry  and  printing, 
soe  farre  as  may  concerne  the  premisses,  without  Lycence  first  ob- 
teined  from  the  Office  of  the  Revells,  over  against  Petty  Cannons 
hall  in  St.  Pauls  churchyard,  where  they  may  certainely  find  one  or 
more  of  the  officers  every  day."  1 

The  general  supervision  of  the  stage  intrusted  to  the  Master 
of  the  Revels  extended  to  various  cases  besides  those  main  lines 
of  his  duty  which  we  have  been  considering.  Anything  con- 
nected with  the  drama  seems  to  have  been  within  his  province. 
For  example,  in  1626  a  long-standing  dispute  between  the  widow 
of  a  shareholder  and  the  surviving  members  of  one  of  the  pat- 
ented companies,  was  referred  to  the  Master  for  settlement.2 
A  curious  case  in  1635,  showing  the  extent  of  the  Master's 
power,  is  revealed  by  this  entry  in  Herbert's  Register:  — 

"I  committed  Cromes,  a  broker  in  Longe  Lane,  the  16  of  Febru. 
1634,  to  the  Marshalsey,  for  lending  a  church-robe  with  the  name  of 
Jesus  upon  it,  to  the  players  in  Salisbury  Court,  to  present  a  Flamen, 
a  priest  of  the  heathens.  Upon  his  petition  of  submission,  and  ac- 
knowledgement of  his  faulte,  I  releasd  him,  the  17  Febr.  1634."  3 

On  the  whole,  the  Master's  business  was  an  extensive  and  a 
-A  profitable  one.  Herbert  apparently  paid  to  Astley  during  the 
latter's  life,  £150  a  year  for  the  office,4  and  his  receipts  beyond 
this  sum  were  so  considerable  that,  as  his  brother,  Lord  Herbert 
of  Cherbury,  tells  us, "  by  these  means,  as  also  by  a  good  marriage, 
he  attained  to  great  fortunes  for  himself  and  his  posterity  to 
enjoy."  5  From  Sir  Henry's  rather  confused  statements  after 
the  Restoration,  it  is  difficult  to  make  out  exactly  how  much  he 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  51-52. 

2  See  the  documents  printed  in  Fleay,  London  Stage,  271  £f.,  294  ff. 

3 1821  Variorum,  III,  237.         4  See  above,  p.  65.  *  Autobiography,  23. 


88 

expected  the  income  from  his  office  to  be.  In  his  assertion  that 
the  failure  of  the  players  to  pay  his  fees  has  cost  him  £5000  for 
five  quarters,  he  appears  to  imply  that  his  receipts  had  amounted, 
before  the  Civil  War,  to  this  sum,  —  that  is,  to  £4000  per  year. 
But  this  seems  impossibly  large.  In  the  following  accounts 
he  sets  down  £163  per  quarter,  or  £652  a  year,  as  his  expected 
receipts  from  some  unspecified  source.1  Possibly  this  is  his  esti- 
mate of  the  normal  profit  from  the  sale  of  licenses  and  other 
gratuities.  Together  with  his  salary  and  allowances  the  pay- 
ments from  the  players  must  certainly  have  swelled  his  yearly 
income  to  a  handsome  sum. 

After  the  Restoration  Herbert  succeeded,  as  a  result  of  some 
legal  controversies,  in  reestablishing  his  authority  to  a  consid- 
erable extent.  At  his  death  in  1673,  Thomas  Killigrew  became 
Master.  The  office  retained  some  part  of  its  jurisdiction  until, 
in  1737,  the  bill  for  licensing  the  stage  left  it  no  shadow  of  its 
old  authority.2 

1  The  accounts  are  printed  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  46-47. 

2  There  is  no  satisfactory  account  of  the  office  after  the  Restoration.  Some 
facts  will  be  found  in  the  article  on  Sir  Henry  Herbert  in  the  Dictionary  of 
National  Biography ;  in  Chalmers,  Apology,  521  ff.,  and  Supplemental  Apology, 
212  ff.;  and  in  Cibber's  Apology,  edited  by  Lowe,  I,  275,  276  ff. 


CHAPTER    III 
The  Nature  of  the  Censorship 

Of  far  greater  importance  than  the  development  and  business 
organization  of  the  Revels  licensing  department,  which  the  pre- 
ceding chapter  has  attempted  to  unravel,  is  the  nature  of  that 
censorship  of  which  the  Master  was  the  official  administrator. 
It  is  an  interesting  task  to  trace  the  sort  of  control  exercised  by  , 
the  government  over  the  content  of  plays,  and  to  speculate  con-  ' 
cerning  its  effect  on  the  Elizabethan  drama.  The  material 
throwing  light  on  this  subject  is  by  no  means  so  full  as  we  could 
wish;  but  it  is  still  possible  to  ascertain  something  from  the 
surviving  manuscripts  showing  the  Master's  expurgations,  and 
from  accounts  of  the  instances  in  which  he  or  his  superiors  in- 
terfered, —  of  all  the  cases,  that  is,  in  which  players  or  play- 
wrights got  into  trouble  because  of  the  content  of  their  plays. 

Judged  by  the  standards  of  the  time,  the  government  super- 
vision was,  on  the  whole,  a  reasonable  and  a  lenient  one.  The 
character  of  the  men  chosen  for  the  office  of  Master  of  the  Revels 
indicates  a  sense  of  fitness  on  the  part  of  the  government,  for 
they  were,  as  we  have  seen,  gentlemen  of  good  family,  generally 
with  some  literary  experience  and  qualifications,  not  apt  to  take 
any  unreasonable  or  Philistine  attitude  towards  the  drama. 
It  is,  of  course,  necessary  for  us  to  remember  that  the  idea  of 
censorship  at  this  period  was  something  radically  different  from 
that  which  inspires  the  uncertain  supervision  exercised  over  the 
stage  in  England  and  sporadically  in  the  United  States  at  the 
present  time.  The  Puritan  notions  concerning  decency  and 
morality  scarcely  affected  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  who  naturally 
held  the  views  of  his  class  and  his  time.  Scenes  which  to  our 
modern  sense  of  propriety  seem  inexpressibly  offensive,  the 
Master  passed  over  without  a  misgiving.  His  concern  was,  in, 
general,  not  a  moral,  but  a  practical  political  one,  —  the  sup-        / 

80 


• 


90 

pression  of  anything  tending  to  cause  disorder  or  contempt  of 
authority. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  government  of  Elizabeth  disapproved 
of  any  presentation  upon  the  stage  of  "  matters  of  religion  or  of 
the  governance  of  the  estate  of  the  common  weale."  *  In  this 
attitude  the  authorities  persisted,  on  the  whole,  throughout  the 
period,  frowning  upon  any  controversial  treatment  of  affairs  of 
church  and  state.  The  Master  and  his  superiors  endeavored 
to  prevent  any  remarks  hostile  to  the  form  and  theory  of  govern- 
ment then  prevailing  in  England,  —  anything  likely  to  stir  up 
dissatisfaction,  disorder,  or  revolt.  Similarly,  they  suppressed 
anything  reflecting  on  the  national  religion,  or  on  foreign  nations 
with  which  the  government  was  anxious  to  keep  on  friendly 
terms.  The  protection  of  personages  of  rank  from  any  disre- 
spectful representation  upon  the  stage  was  also  a  frequent  con- 
cern of  the  Master.  The  King  himself  had  to  be  guarded  at 
times  from  such  irreverence,  and  foreign  sovereigns  also  —  all 
"modern  Christian  kings"  —  the  players  were  forbidden  to 
represent.  Neither  were  they  supposed  to  attack  or  satirize 
noblemen,  magistrates,  or  other  persons  of  consequence,  —  a 
rule  often  broken  and  the  cause  of  frequent  interference  by  the 
authorities.  Another  chief  concern  of  the  later  Masters  was  the 
enforcement  of  the  statute  of  1606,  forbidding  the  use  in  plays 
of  the  name  of  the  Deity.2  In  obedience  to  this,  the  censor  tried 
to  excise  all  oaths,  and  sometimes,  as  we  shall  see,  had  difficulty 
in  deciding  how  strong  a  degree  of  affirmation  was  permissible. 
The  nature  of  all  this  supervision  will  become  clearer  as  we 
follow  its  history  through  the  period. 

We  have  treated  in  an  earlier  chapter  the  exercise  of  the  cen- 
sorship during  the  first  part  of  the  Tudor  period.  Our  concern 
here  is  with  the  years  during  which  the  Master  was  in  charge. 
There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  during  the  first  decade  or  more 
of  his  censorship  the  policy  of  the  government  was  a  very  re- 
pressive one,  or  indeed  that  there  was  any  considerable  need 
for  repression.  The  dramatists  were  in  sympathy  with  the 
people,  and  the  people  were  loyal  supporters  of  the  government 

1  See  above,  p.  15.  2  See  above,  p.  19. 


91 

of  Elizabeth.  As  Mr.  Bond  suggests,1  the  Queen  herself  was 
apparently  not  unwilling  to  sec  upon  the  stage  a  fairly  frank 
representation  of  current  political  events,  if  we  may  judge  from 
the  slightly  veiled  symbolism  which  modern  critics  have  dis- 
covered in  Endymion  and  Sappho  and  Phao. 

The  first  case  of  rigorous  interference  by  the  authorities  under 
this  regime  was  that  of  the  Martin  Marprelate  controversy,  ^ 
already  twice  mentioned.  The  Martinists,  the  Puritan  pam- 
phleteers who  assailed  the  Established  Church,  could  of  course 
expect  no  sympathy  from  the  players,  whom  the  Puritan  party 
had  long  bitterly  vituperated  and  endeavored  to  suppress. 
Ranging  themselves  with  the  government  and  the  Court,  the  x  y 
players  replied  by  violent  dramatic  attacks  on  the  Marprelate 
party.  These  controversial  plays  have  not  survived,  and  are 
known  to  us  only  by  allusions  in  contemporary  pamphlets. 
One  appears  to  have  been  of  the  morality  type,  in  which  Martin 
was  represented  as  an  ape,  vilely  attacking  the  lady  "  Divinitie." 
In  another  he  appeared  with  "a  cocks  combe,  an  apes  face,  a 
wolfes  bellie,  cats  clawes."  It  seems  probable,  from  an  allusion 
in  Lyly's  Pappe  with  a  Hatchett,  that  the  former  play  was  sup- 
pressed —  possibly  by  the  city  authorities  —  before  the  latter 
part  of  September,  1589;  and  that  other  plays  which  had  been 
written  against  Martin  had  been  refused  a  license.2  Apparently, 
however,  some  of  the  offensive  dramas  later  got  upon  the  stage, 
for  on  November  6  we  find  that  the  Privy  Council  had  ordered 
the  suppression  of  all  plays  in  and  about  London,  "in  that  Mr. 
Tilney  did  utterly  mislike  the  same."  3  The  correspondence 
relative  to  the  establishment  of  the  censorship  commission,  six 
days  later,  informs  us  that  the  ground  of  this  disapproval  was 
the  players'  having  "taken  upon  them  to  handle  in  their  plays  ■  .  , 
certain  matters  of  Divinity  and  of  State  unfit  to  be  suffered."  4 
This  is  rather  vague.  In  the  absence  of  more  definite  informa- 
tion, we  can  only  conjecture  that  these  controversial  plays  had 
caused  disorders  and  complaints ;  that  the  authorities  disapproved 

1  Edition  of  Lyly,  I,  31. 

2  See  Bond's  Lyly,  I,  52  ff.,  where  the  extracts  from  the  pamphlets  are  con- 
veniently given. 

'  See  above,  pp.  17-18,  55  and  below,  pp.  176-177.  *  Acts,  XVIII,  214. 


92 

of  the  public  representation  of  such  grave  matters  in  such  a 
scurrilous  manner;  and  that  therefore,  though  the  persons 
attacked  were  the  bitter  assailants  of  the  Established  Church, 
the  government  very  properly  suppressed  all  plays  until  meas- 
ures could  be  taken  to  secure  their  more  effective  supervision. 
There  is  no  indication  that  any  of  the  players  or  playwrights 
were  severely  punished  —  the  two  members  of  Lord  Strange's 
company  imprisoned  for  disobeying  the  Lord  Mayor  were  prob- 
ably soon  released  —  or  that  performances  were  interdicted 
for  any  considerable  length  of  time. 

It  has  generally  been  assumed  that  some  similarly  offensive 
representation  of  the  religious  controversy  was  the  cause  of  the 
suppression  of  the  Paul's  Boys  in  1590  or  1591.  That  "the 
Plaies  in  Paules  were  dissolved"  *  about  this  time,  and  not  re- 
newed until  about  1600,  is  all  we  positively  know  concerning 
the  matter.2  In  view  of  the  comparatively  lenient  attitude  gen- 
erally taken  by  the  government  towards  such  offenses,  it  seems 
impossible  that  such  an  extremely  severe  punishment  as  exclu- 
sion from  the  stage  for  nearly  nine  years  could  have  been  in- 
flicted because  of  a  controversial  play  of  this  kind.  What  was 
the  real  cause  of  the  loss  of  royal  favor  and  of  the  decision  that 
the  Paul's  Boys  had  best  confine  themselves  for  a  time  to  their 
choral  duties,  we  shall  apparently  never  know. 

If  we  are  to  believe  an  anonymous  tract  issued  in  1592,  greater 
freedom  was  allowed  the  players  at  this  period  for  attacks  on* 
the  Roman  Catholic  religion  than  on  the  Puritans.  A  pam- 
phlet of  1592,  attributed  to  Parsons  the  Jesuit,  states  that  certain 
players  have  been  suffered  "to  scoffe  and  jeast  at"  the  King  of 
Spain  "upon  their  common  stages,"  and  to  deride  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion  by  annexing  a  verse  against  it  to  one  of  the 
Psalms  of  David.3  So  soon  after  the  days  of  the  Armada,  it 
was  natural  to  allow  a  disrespect  to  Spain  and  Catholicism 
which  would  have  been  promptly  suppressed  by  the  govern- 
ment in  later  years.4 

1  Printer's  Preface  to  Endymion,  licensed  October  4,  1501. 

1  See  Baker's  edition  of  Lyly's  Endymion,  civ  ff. ;  and  Bond's  Lylv,  I,  62. 

s  Quoted  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  279. 

4  Compare  the  case  of  the  Game  at  Chess.     See  below,  pp.  118  ff. 


93 

Our  most  vivid  glimpse  of  the  sort  of  censorship  exercised 
by  Tilney  during  his  administration  is  gained  from  the  very 
interesting  manuscript  play-book  of  Sir .Thomas  More,  showing 
the  Master's  "reformations."  This  anonymous  play  has  been 
variously  dated,  —  as  early  as  1586/  and  as  late  as  1596.2  Prob- 
ably Dyce's  conjecture  is  the  most  likely,  —  that  it  was  written 
about  1590  or  a  little  earlier.3  The  manuscript — Harleian 
7368  —  is  a  very  confusing  one,  consisting  of  the  official  copy 
submitted  to  the  censor  and  three  different  sets  of  alterations  and 
additions,  one  of  which,  it  has  been  contended,  is  actual!}'  in 
the  handwriting  of  Shakspere  himself.4  The  play  sets  forth  the 
rise  and  fall  of  Sir  Thomas  More,  —  portraying  him  first  as 
Sheriff  of  London,  suppressing,  by  his  eloquence  and  sound 
sense,  the  insurrection  of  the  citizens  against  the  foreign  residents, 
on  the  "ill  May  Day"  of  15 17 ;  then  as  Lord  Chancellor,  enter- 
taining at  his  house  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the  Aldermen ;  later, 
as  refusing  to  subscribe  to  the  "articles"  sent  him  by  the  King; 
imprisoned  in  the  Tower;  and  finally  on  his  way  to  execution. 
Throughout  he  is  sympathetically  represented  as  an  admirable 
character,  once  in  error,  but  greatly  loved  and  respected  by  the 
people.  Though  he  protests  to  the  very  end  his  loyalty  to  the 
King,  he  never  retracts  or  repents  his  refusal  to  subscribe  to 
the  royal  articles.  "A  very  learned  woorthie  gentleman  seales 
errour  with  his  blood,"  says  Surrey,  at  the  end,  summing  up  the 
portrayal  of  the  Chancellor's  character.  As  for  the  insurrection 
against  the  foreigners,  though  there  are  many  sound  speeches 
against  rioting  and  sedition,  and  concerning  the  obedience 
due  the  King,  the  sympathy  of  the  writer  or  writers  is  clearly 
with  the  citizens  in  their  protests  against  the  encroachments 
and  outrages  of  the  foreigners. 

1  R.  Simpson,  in  Notes  and  Queries,  July  i,  1871. 

2  Fleay,  English  Drama,  II,  312. 

s  Dyce's  edition,  in  Shakspere  Society  Publications,  Vol.  XXIII,  1844.  The 
play  seems  to  refer  to  the  troubles  of  September,  1586,  rather  than  to  the  prentice 
riots  of  1595.  But  it  is  unlikely  that  the  players  would  have  ventured  to  produce 
the  drama  immediately  after  the  height  of  the  trouble.  We  may  assume  that 
an  interval  elapsed,  —  perhaps  about  three  years  or  less.     See  below,  p.  94. 

4  See  R.  Simpson,  in  Notes  and  Queries,  July  1,  1871 ;  and  J.  Spedding,  ibid., 
September  21,  1872. 


/ 


94 

The  very  fact  that  a  playwright  dared  to  treat  without  dis- 
guise such  a  critical  point  in  the  political  history  of  the  reign 
of  the  Queen's  father,  shows  the  freedom  allowed  to  the  stage 
at  this  time.  From  Tilney's  "reformations"  it  appears  that 
he  was  willing  to  have  More's  career  portrayed,  but  felt  some 
uneasiness  at  seeing  such  a  popular  and  admirable  person  repre- 
sented as  disobedient  to  the  royal  authority.  At  the  point  where 
the  Chancellor  refuses  to  accede  to  the  King's  demand,  the  action 
is  set  forth  without  any  seditious  or  disrespectful  language  what- 
soever, and  the  contents  of  the  "articles"  is  tactfully  left  unspe- 
cified. Nevertheless  Tilney  drew  his  pen  through  all  the  con- 
cluding portion  of  the  scene,  where  More's  refusal  is  represented, 
and  wrote  in  the  margin  "all  altered."  1 

He  appears  to  have  been  even  more  afraid  of  anything  tend- 
ing to  arouse,  or  even  suggest,  popular  discontent  or  rebellion. 
Opposite  the  following  speech  by  Shrewsbury  he  has  written 
"Mend  y\" 

"My  lord  of  Surrey,  and  Sir  Thomas  Palmer, 
Might  I  with  patience  tcmpte  your  graue  aduise, 
I  tell  ye  true,  that  in  these  daungerous  times 
I  do  not  like  this  frowning  vulgare  brow: 
My  searching  eye  did  neuer  entertaine 
A  more  distracted  countenaunce  of  greefe 
Then  I  haue  late  obseru'de 
In  the  displeased  commons  of  the  cittie."  2 

It  seems  very  probable  that  the  play  gained  much  of  its  point 
from  the  similarity  of  the  popular  feeling  against  foreigners 
which  it  described,  to  the  sentiment  existing  at  the  time  the  drama 
was  written.  This  discontent  nearly  burst  into  violent  acts  in 
September,  1586,  when  Recorder  Fleetwood  wrote  to  Burghley 
that  the  apprentices  had  conspired  an  insurrection  against  the 
French  and  the  Dutch,  but  especially  the  French,  "all  things 
as  like  unto  yll  May  day  as  could  be  devised,  in  all  manner  of 
circumstances,  mutatis  mutandis."  3  It  was  natural  that  Tilney 
should  try  to  cut  out  anything  tending  to  inflame  this  popular 

1  Dyce's  edition,  p.  74.  2  p.  14. 

3  See  R.  Simpson,  in  Notes  and  Queries,  July  1,  1871.  Mr.  Fleay  connects 
the  play  with  the  prentice  riots  of  1595.     English  Drama,  II,  312. 


95 

feeling  that  had  been  so  recently  dangerous.  On  the  margin, 
at  the  commencement  of  the  play,  he  wrote:  "Leave  out  ye 
insurrection  wholy,  and  the  cause  thereofT,  and  begin  with  Sir 
Tho.  Moore  at  y*  mayors  sessions,  with  a  reportt  afterwardes 
off  his  good  service  don,  being  shrive  off  London,  uppon  a  meet- 
ing agaynst  ye  Lumbardes,  only  by  a  shortt  reportt,  and  nott 
otherwise,  att  your  own  pcrrilles.  E.  Tyllney."  '  That  is,  he 
desired  to  have  the  players  omit  all  the  scenes  where  the  citizens 
are  abused  by  the  foreigners  and  finally  rise  against  their  op- 
pressors, and  merely  have  a  brief  report  of  More's  suppression  of 
the  rioting.  He  was  particularly  anxious  to  avoid  anything  tend- 
ing to  stir  up  the  people  against  the  French,  and  altered  several 
lines  to  this  end.  For  example,  when  Shrewsbury  tells  of  insults 
offered  by  foreigners  to  the  citizens,  Tilney  substitutes  "  Lom- 
bard "  for  "  Frenchman  "; 2  and  in  the  account  of  the  French- 
man Bard's  impudent  assertion  that 

".   .   .  if  he  had  the  Maior  of  Londons  wife 
He  would  keep  her  in  despight  of  any  Englishe," 

Tilney  crosses  out  "  Englishe  "  and  writes  merely  "  man."  3 

If  this  manuscript  represents  the  text  actually  used  for  per- 
formance, the  players  apparently  disobeyed  some  of  the  Master's  < 
instructions.  The  insurrection  scene,  for  example,  they  seem 
to  have  left  in,  "at  their  perils";  and  it  does  not  appear  that 
they  "mended"  all  the  points  as  he  desired.  But  probably 
this  very  confused  play-book  does  not  represent  the  acting 
version. 

Though  the  trouble  in  which  Kyd  and  Marlowe  were  involved 
in  1593  was  not  directly  caused  by  their  dramas,  it  should  per- 
haps be  alluded  to  at  this  point,  as  showing  that  the  government 
was  keeping  an  eye  on  playwrights  and  guarding  against  sedi-  \ 
tion  and  atheism.  The  facts  of  the  case  are  by  no  means  clear. 
In  May  of  that  year  Kyd  was  arrested,  imprisoned,  and  tortured 
to  extract  testimony.  Suspected  at  first  of  some  "libell  that 
concerned  the  State,"  he  was  afterwards,  because  of  a  Disputa- 
tion found  among  his  papers,  charged  with  atheism.     A  week 

1  p.  1,  note.  2  p.  16.  sp.  15. 


96 

after  Kyd's  arrest,  possibly  on  his  testimony,  Marlowe  was  ap- 
prehended by  a  warrant  from  the  Council,  but  apparently  not 
imprisoned,  for  the  Lords  accepted  his  pledge  to  appear  when 
wanted.  While  his  case  was  under  investigation,  he  was  stabbed 
to  death,  on  June  i,  1593.  The  charge  on  which  Marlowe  was 
arrested  is  not  clearly  apparent,  but  seems  to  have  been  atheism. 
Kyd  was  soon  afterwards  released.1 

The  famous  name  of  Falstaff  now  appears  in  our  history; 
but  concerning  the  precise  circumstances  of  the  trouble  in  which 
this  character  involved  Shakspere  we  know  even  less  than  about 
the  Kyd  and  Marlowe  affair.  When  Henry  IV  was  first  pro-  , 
duced,  probably  in  1597,  the  fat  knight  was  entitled  Sir  John 
Oldcastle,  —  a  name  which  Shakspere  had  innocently  taken 
over  from  the  old  play,  The  Famous  Victories  of  Henry  V.  But 
the  use  of  the  name  of  the  illustrious  Lollard  martyr,  "the  good 
Lord  Cobham,"  for  so  unedifying  a  character,  aroused  protest. 
According  to  the  tradition  handed  down  by  Rowe,  the  descend- 
ants of  the  famous  nobleman  protested,  and  got  the  dramatist 
to  change  the  title.  "  Some  of  that  family  being  then  remaining, 
the  Queen  was  pleased  to  command  him  to  alter  it."  If  the 
production  of  the  play  preceded  the  death  of  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain, Lord  Cobham,  on  March  5,  1597,  it  was  probably  he  who 
thus  defended  the  memory  of  his  ancestor.  Or  if  he  had  already 
died,  others  of  the  family  intervened.  Shakspere  or  his  company 
apparently  made  prompt  reparation.  The  name  Oldcastle 
was  altered  to  Falstaff,  and  the  Epilogue  of  Part  II  expressly 
protested  "Oldcastle  died  a  martyr  and  this  is  not  the  man." 
The  play  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  which  the  title-page  falsely  attrib- 
uted to  Shakspere,  appeared  in  1600  and  further  defended  the 
character  of  the  Lollard  nobleman. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Shakspere  or  his  company  got  into 
any  serious  difficulties  as  a  result  of  this  indiscretion.  Eliza- 
beth's fondness  for  the  character  of  Falstaff,  to  which  tradi- 
tion testifies,  would  certainly  have  saved  them  from  punish- 
ment.    But  the  incident  shows  that  dramatists  had  to  be  careful 

1  See  Boas'  Kyd,  Ivi  ff.,  cviii  ff.;  and  Ingram,  Marlowe  and  his  Associates, 
230  ff.  Marlowe  had  been  arrested  in  1589,  but  for  what  reason  and  under 
what  circumstances  we  do  not  know.     See  Ingram,  op.  cit.,  148  ff. 


97 

not    to   allude  disrespectfully  to   powerful  noblemen  or  their 
families.1 

The  last  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign  show  two  notable  cases  in 
which  the  drama  was  used  to  reflect  the  growing  political  unrest 
of  the  time.  The  first  of  these  occurred  in  the  summer  of  1597, 
—  the  performance  of  Nash's  Isle  of  Dogs  at  the  Rose.  Though 
Nash  was  apparently  held  chiefly  responsible,  he  really  wrote, 
he  tells  us,  only  the  induction  and  the  first  act;  the  other  four 
acts,  which  bred  all  the  trouble,  were  supplied  by  the  players, 
"without  my  consent,  or  the  least  guesse  of  my  drift  or  scope."  2 
Since  the  Isle  of  Dogs  has  not  survived,  we  cannot  tell  how  serious 
the  offense  was,  but  the  rigorous  action  taken  by  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil indicates  that  the  play  contained  some  seditious  attack  on  the 
government  policy,  or  upon  persons  of  high  rank  in  the  state. 
Our  chief  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  the  work  and  of  the  im- 
prisonment of  Nash  and  the  other  players  is  derived  from  the 
following  entry  in  the  Council  Register,  on  August  15,  in  the 
form  of  a  letter  to  several  Justices  of  the  Peace. 

"Upon  informacion  given  us  of  a  lewd  plaie  that  was  plaied  in 
one  of  the  plaiehowses  on  the  Bancke  Side,  contanynge  very  seditious 
and  sclanderous  matter,  wee  caused  some  of  the  players  to  be  appre- 
hended and  comytted  to  pryson,  whereof  one  of  them  was  not  only 
an  actor  but  a  maker  of  parte  of  the  said  plaie.  For  as  moche  as 
yt  ys  thought  meete  that  the  rest  of  the  players  or  actors  in  that  matter 
shalbe  apprehended  to  receave  soche  punyshment  as  theire  leude 
and  mutynous  behavior  doth  deserve,  these  shalbe  therefore  to  re- 
quire you  to  examine  those  of  the  plaiers  that  are  comytted,  whose 
names  are  knowne  to  you,  Mr.  Topclyfe,  what  ys  become  of  the  rest 
of  theire  fellowes  that  either  had  theire  partes  in  the  devysinge  of 
that  sedytious  matter  or  that  were  actors  or  plaiers  in  the  same,  what 
copies  they  have  given  forth  of  the  said  playe  and  to  whome,  and  soch 
other  pointes  as  you  shall  thincke  meete  to  be  demaunded  of  them, 
wherein  you  shall  require  them  to  deale  trulie  as  they  will  looke  to 
receave  anie  favour.  Wee  praie  you  also  to  peruse  soch  papers  as 
were  fownde  in  Nash  his  lodgings,  which  Ferrys,  a  Messenger  of  the 
Chamber,  shall  delyver  unto  you,  and  to  certyfie  us  th'  examynacions 
you  take."  3 

1  Quotations  from  the  sources  of  our  information  and  further  references  may 
be  found  in  any  good  edition  of  the  play.  For  Mr.  Fleay's  conjecture  as  to  its 
connection  with  the  closing  of  the  theaters  in  1597,  see  below,  p.  188. 

5  Nash,  LenUn  Stuffe,  Grosart  edition,  V,  200.  3  Acts,  XXVII,  338. 

H 


98 

At  the  time  of  the  arrest  of  the  players,  the  Lords  had  evidently 
also  ordered  the  cessation  of  all  performances  at  the  Rose.  On 
August  10  Henslowe  entered  in  his  Diary  an  agreement  with  a 
player  who  is  to  act  with  the  Lord  Admiral's  company  at  that 
theater,  "beginynge  Jmediatly  after  this  Restraynt  is  Recaled 
by  the  lordes  of  the  cownsell  wch  Restraynt  is  by  the  meanes  of 
playinge  the  Jeylle  of  dooges."  l  The  entries  in  the  Diary  con- 
cerning Nash's  imprisonment  in  the  Fleet,  and  the  news  of  the 
restraint's  being  recalled  by  the  Council,  are  modern  forgeries.2 
Though  the  offense  was  apparently  considered  a  serious  one, 
and  the  search  of  Nash's  lodgings  would  even  indicate  a  sus- 
picion of  some  plot,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  players'  punish- 
ment continued  long.  The  theater  soon  reopened,  and  six 
months  later  this  same  company,  the  Lord  Admiral's,  was  one 
of  the  two  granted  special  privileges  by  the  Privy  Council.3 

By  far  the  most  interesting  case  of  the  use  of  the  stage  for 
political  purposes  is  the  well-known  effort  of  the  Essex  conspira- 
tors to  encourage  rebellion  by  the  performance  of  Shakspere's 
Richard  II*  Though  this  drama  was  certainly  not  originally 
written  with  any  treasonable  intent,  the  scene  of  the  King's 
abdication  apparently  offended  Elizabeth's  sensibility  in  such 
matters,  and  was  expurgated  from  the  first  and  second  quartos, 
issued  in  1597  and  1598.  The  conspirators  appear  to  have  be- 
lieved that  the  public  representation  of  this  abdication  and  of  the 
murder  of  the  King  might  fire  the  boldness  of  the  chief  traitors 
and  encourage  the  populace  to  rebellion  against  the  present 
Sovereign.  They  consequently  planned  to  have  the  play  pro- 
duced at  the  Globe  on  February  7,  1601,  the  day  preceding  the 
date  set  for  the  uprising.  As  we  learn  from  the  testimony  of 
Augustine  Phillips,  a  prominent  member  of  the  company,  Sir 
Charles  Percy,  Sir  Josceline  Percy,  Lord  Monteagle,  and  several 
others  went  to  some  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  players  and  re- 
quested them  to  perform  the  deposing  and  killing  of  King  Rich- 

1  Henslowe's  Diary,  203.  2  Ibid.,  xl,  xli.  3  See  above,  p.  58. 

4  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  this  play  of  the  "deposing  and  killing  of 
King  Richard  II"  was  Shakspere's.  It  belonged  to  his  company;  and,  as  his 
drama  had  been  written  about  seven  years  before,  it  might  well  be  referred  to  as 
an  "old  play." 


99 

ard  II,  promising  to  give  them  forty  shillings  "more  than  their 
ordinary  "  to  do  so.  The  actors  had  arranged  to  play  some  other 
play,  holding  that  of  King  Richard  as  being  so  old  and  so  long 
out  of  use  that  they  should  have  a  small  company  at  it,  but  "at 
this  request  they  were  content  to  play  it."  1  On  the  day  of  the 
performance  nine  of  the  conspirators  met  at  one  Gunter's  house, 
and  together  went  to  the  Globe,  there  to  derive  treasonable  in- 
spiration from  Shakspere's  play.2/^ 

No  other  representation  of  Richard  II  seems  to  be  mentioned 
in  the  legal  documents  concerning  the  conspiracy.  In  the  fol- 
lowing summer  Queen  Elizabeth,  in  a  conversation  with  William 
Lambarde,  referring  to  the  Essex  Rebellion,  said,  "I  am  Richard 
II,  know  ye  not  that?"  Lambarde  replied,  "Such  a  wicked  im- 
agination was  determined  and  attempted  by  a  most  unkind  Gent. 
the  most  adorned  creature  that  ever  your  Majestic  made." 
"He  that  will  forget  God,"  rejoined  Elizabeth,  "will  also  forget 
his  benefactors;  this  tragedie  was  played  4otie  times  in  open 
streets  and  houses."  3  With  all  due  respect  to  the  Queen,  one 
cannot  but  feel  that  the  story  had  grown  tremendously  between 
February  and  August. 

Serious  as  was  this  conspiracy,  resulting  in  the  execution  of 
Essex  and  several  others,  the  players  appear  to  have  suffered  no 
punishment  for  their  part  in  it.  The  protection  of  their  patron, 
the  Lord  Chamberlain,  may  have  stood  them  in  good  stead ;  or 
it  may  have  been  obvious  to  the  authorities  that  they  had  had 
no  treasonable  intent.  Moreover,  Elizabeth  probably  did  not 
wish  to  deprive  herself  of  the  diversion  which  their  performances 
afforded  her.  On  February  24,  a  little  more  than  two  weeks 
after  the  rebellion,  and  on  the  eve  of  the  execution  of  Essex, 
the  Lord  Chamberlain's  men  played  at  Court  before  the  Queen.4 
Evidently  Shakspere  and  his  fellows  stood  high  in  royal  favor, 
and  they  may  well  have  been  thankful  for  the  leniency  which 
spared  them  any  penalty  for  their  grave  indiscretion. 

1  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1598-1601,  578. 

2  Ibid.,  573,  575.     See  also  State  Trials,  I,  141 2,  1445. 
'Nichols,  Progresses  of  Elizabeth,  III,  552. 

4  Cunningham,  Revels  Accounts,  xxxii;  Thorndike,  Hamlet  and  Contempo- 
rary Revenge  Plays,  in  Modern  Language  Association  Publications,  XVII,  132. 


100 

One  other  case  of  trouble  in  Elizabeth's  reign,  of  a  much  less 
serious  nature,  shows  the  opposition  of  the  authorities  to  the  dis- 
respectful representation  upon  the  stage  of  persons  of  rank. 
On  May  10,  1601,  as  we  have  already  seen,1  the  Privy  Council 
wrote  to  certain  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  Middlesex,  concerning 
the  players  at  the  Curtain,  who,  it  was  reported,  were  represent- 
ing upon  the  stage  in  their  interludes  "  the  persons  of  some  gentle- 
men of  good  desert  and  quaUity  that  are  yet  alive  under  obscure 
manner,  but  yet  in  such  sorte  as  all  the  hearers  may  take  notice 
both  of  the  matter  and  the  persons  that  are  meant  thereby." 
"This  beinge  a  thinge  very  unfitte  and  offensive,"  the  Council 
orders  the  Justices  to  stop  the  play  and  investigate  it.  If  they 
find  it  "so  odious  and  inconvenient  as  is  informed,"  they  are 
required  to  "take  bond"  of  the  chief  players  "to  aunswere  their 
rashe  and  indiscreete  dealing  before  us." 2  Apparently  the 
matter  was  not  particularly  "odious,"  for  the  Council  seems  to 
have  taken  no  further  notice  of  it. 

During  the  early  years  of  James'  reign  there  were  apparently 
various  attempts  to  represent  current  events  upon  the  stage, 
and  even  to  express  there  some  of  the  dissatisfaction  and  con- 
tempt felt  by  many  of  his  subjects  for  their  new  Sovereign. 
Beaumont,  the  French  Ambassador,  in  a  despatch  written  in 
June,  1604,  forcibly  portrays  the  popular  attitude  towards 
James.  "  Consider,  for  pity's  sake,  what  must  be  the  state  and 
condition  of  a  prince,  whom  the  preachers  publicly  from  the  pul- 
pit assail,  whom  the  comedians  bring  upon  the  stage,  whose  wife 
attends  these  representations  to  enjoy  the  laugh  against  her  hus- 
band, whom  the  parliament  braves  and  despises,  and  who  is 
universally  hated  by  the  whole  people."  3 

Even  the  King's  own  company  was  indiscreet  in  representing 
his  Majesty  upon  the  stage.  In  December,  1604,  they  produced 
the  tragedy  of  Gowry,  which  must  have  portrayed  the  unsuccess- 
ful plot  of  the  Earl  of  that  name  against  King  James,  in  the  year 
1600.4    The  play  does  not  survive,  and  we  know  of  it  only  from 

1  See  above,  p.  18.  2  Acts,  XXXI,  346. 

8  Raumer,  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Centuries,  II,  206-207. 
4  For  an  interesting  account  of  this  conspiracy,  indicating  the  probable  nature 
of  the  play,  sec  Stale  Trials,  I,  1359  ff. 


TY 


. 


101 

Chamberlain's  letter  to  Winwood,  of  December  18,  1604,  wherein 
he  narrates:  "The  tragedy  of  Goivry,  with  all  the  Action  and 
Actors,  hath  been  twice  represented  by  the  King's  Players,  with 
exceeding  Concourse  of  all  sorts  of  People.  But  whether  the 
matter  or  manner  be  not  well  handled,  or  that  it  be  thought  unfit 
that  Princes  should  be  played  on  the  Stage  in  their  Life-time,  I 
hear  that  some  great  Councellors  are  much  displeased  with  it, 
and  so  'tis  thought  shall  be  forbidden."  '  The  phrasing  of  this 
letter  indicates  that  it  may  have  been  this  tragedy  which  caused 
the  "commandment  and  restraint,"  mentioned  in  1624,  "against 
the  representing  of  any  modern  Christian  kings  in  stage-plays."  2 
But  it  is  even  more  likely  that  this  order  resulted  from  the  per- 
formance of  Chapman's  Biron,  which  we  shall  presently  consider.3 
The  boldness  of  the  actors  apparently  continued,  order  or  no  J 
order,  for  on  March  28,  1605,  Calvert  wrote  to  Winwood  that, 
the  players  did  not  "forbear  to  present  upon  their  stage  the/ 
whole  course  of  the  present  Time,  not  sparing  either  King,  State,! 
or  Religion,  in  so  great  Absurdity,  and  with  such  Liberty,  that/ 
any  would  be  afraid  to  hear  them."  4 

Possibly  one  of  the  plays  which  caused  this  comment  was  Day's 
Isle  of  Gulls,  produced  in  1605.  Mr.  Fleay  thinks  that  it  was 
almost  certainly  one  of  the  series  of  dramas  of  this  time  in  which 
royalty  wTas  satirized.  He  points  out  that  it  was  published  sur- 
reptitiously; and  that  the  characters  who  in  the  extant  version 
are  called  Duke  and  Duchess,  had  in  the  original  version  been 
called  King  and  Queen.5  There  seems  to  be  no  proof  that  this 
was  actually  the  play  alluded  to  in  Calvert's  letter  of  March  28, 
as  Mr.  Fleay  suggests;  but  probably  it  was  indiscreet  in  its 
first  form,  and  it  may  have  involved  its  author  or  producers 
in  difficulty. 

It  is  possible  that  one  of  the  dramas  which  caused  Calvert's 
comment  was  the  famous  and  delightful  Eastward  Hoe,  the  joint 
production  of  Jonson,  Chapman,  and  Marston,  acted  about  this 
time.  The  severe  procedure  against  its  apparently  mild  attack 
on  the  Scotch  would  indicate,  however,  that  Calvert  must  have 

1  Winwood,  Memorials,  II,  41.  2  See  below,  p.  no. 

s  See  below,  pp.  105  IT.  *  Winwood,  Memorials,  II,  54. 

8  Fleay,  English  Drama,  I,  108-110. 


102 

exaggerated  the  frankness  of  the  satire  which  was  allowed  to  go 
unsuppressed.  The  play's  hit  at  the  King's  numerous  bestowals 
of  knighthood  —  granted  often,  it  was  hinted,  for  the  sake  of  the 
fee  —  in  the  line  "  I  ken  the  man  weel,  he's  one  of  my  thirty  pound 
knights,"  1  seems  to  have  passed  uncondemned,  as  did  similar 
allusions  in  other  dramas.2  But  the  satirical  reference,  in  Act  III, 
Scene  ii,  to  the  Scotch  adventurers  who  had  followed  the  King  to 
London,  apparently  brought  down  the  royal  wrath  upon  the 
authors.  In  the  first  edition  of  the  play,  issued  in  September, 
1605,  the  leaves  containing  this  passage  were  cancelled  and  re- 
printed, and  it  occurs  only  in  a  few  of  the  original  copies.  Cap- 
tain Seagull  is  describing  the  wonders  of  Virginia,  —  gold,  pre- 
cious stones,  and  other  treasures,  —  and  as  an  added  attraction 
he  remarks:  "And  then  you  shall  live  freely  there,  without  sar- 
geants,  or  courtiers,  or  lawyers,  or  intelligencers,  only  a  few  indus- 
trious Scots  perhaps,  who  indeed  are  dispersed  over  the  face  of 
the  whole  earth.  But  as  for  them,  there  are  no  greater  friends 
to  Englishmen  and  England,  when  they  are  out  on't,  in  the 
world,  than  they  are.  And  for  my  own  part,  I  would  a  hundred 
thousand  of  them  were  there,  for  we  are  all  one  countrymen  now, 
ye  know,  and  we  should  find  ten  times  more  comfort  of  them  there 
than  we  do  here."  3  This  seems  to  be  the  passage  meant  by 
Jonson  when  he  says  that  "he  was  delated  by  Sir  James  Murray 
to  the  King,  for  writing  something  against  the  Scots,  in  a  play 
called  Eastward  Hoe."  4  But  perhaps  at  the  performance  of  the 
comedy  these  lines  were  made  even  more  offensive. 

The  trouble  about  this  comedy  caused  Jonson's  imprisonment 
for  a  time.  The  question  of  his  various  incarcerations  because 
of  his  plays,  which  this  incident  brings  up,  is  a  puzzling  one,  not 
yet  satisfactorily  solved.  Before  the  year  1605  he  had  appar- 
ently already  been  twice  in  difficulties.  In  just  what  trouble 
the  Poetaster,  acted  in  1601,  had  involved  him,  we  do  not  know ; 

1  Act  IV,  Scene  i. 

3  See  the  Phoenix,  in  Bullen's  Middleton,  I,  135,  note. 

8  Act  III,  Scene  ii;  Chatto  and  Windus  edition  of  Chapman,  467.  The 
portion  expunged  began  at  the  words  "only  a  few,"  and  continued  through  the 
passage  as  it  is  here  quoted. 

*  Jonson's  Conversations  with  Drummond,  Gifford's  edition  of   Jonson,  IX, 

39°- 


103 

but  the  play  seems  to  have  been  suppressed  at  some  time,  or 
there  was  an  attempt  to  suppress  it.  Jonson's  Dedication  to 
Mr.  Richard  Martin,  in  the  1616  Folio,  states  that  this  gentle- 
man had  formerly  "preserved"  the  play,  "which  so  much  ig- 
norance and  malice  then  conspired  to  have  supprest."  In  the 
Apologctical  Dialogue  at  the  end,  itself  condemned  by  the 
authorities  after  one  recital,  we  find  that  the  author  had  been 
accused  of  "taxing  the"  law,  and  lawyers;  captains,  and  the 
players,  by  their  particular  names."  Jonson  protests  that  he 
has  attacked  no"  persons  by  name,  only  general  vices.  He 
denies  any  allusion  to  "the  laws  or  their  just  ministers,"  both  of 
which  he  deeply  reverences.  He  did  not  attack  the  military 
profession  in  any  way,  he  contends,  and  only  some  players.  The 
details  of  this  episode  in  the  war  of  the  theaters  must  apparently 
remain  obscure. 

At  a  later  date,  probably  soon  after  the  accession  of  James, 
Jonson  was  in  trouble  because  of  his  Sejanus.  Henry  Howard, 
Earl  of  Northampton,  who  was,  Jonson  tells  us,  the  poet's 
mortal  enemy,  had  him  summoned  before  the  Council  because 
of  this  play,  and  accused  "both  of  poperie  and  treason."  *  As 
Sejanus  was  altered  before  publication,  it  is  impossible  to  say  ' 
what  justification,  if  any,  there  was  for  this  charge.2  Nor  do 
we  know  the  result  of  Jonson's  appearance  before  the  Council. 

His  next  difficulty  of  this  sort,  and  apparently  by  far  the  most 
serious,  was  that  caused  by  Eastward  Hoe.  There  is  some  differ- 
ence of  opinion  concerning  the  details  of  this  affair,  which  we 
need  not  attempt  to  settle  conclusively  here.  Jonson's  own 
account,  as  reported  by  Drummond,  is  plain  enough.  "He  was 
delated  by  Sir  James  Murray  to  the  King,  for  writing  something 
against  the  Scots  in  a  play  called  Eastward  Hoe,  and  voluntarily 
imprisoned  himself  with  Chapman  and  Marston,  who  had  written 
it  amongst  them.  The  report  was,  that  they  should  then  have 
had  their  ears  cut  and  their  noses."  But  this  fate  they  escaped. 
"After  their  delivery  he  banqueted  all  his  friends."  3 

This  story  may  be  literally  true,  as  it  has  come  down  to  us. 

1  Jonson's  Conversations  with  Drummond,  Gifford's  edition  of  Jonson,  IX, 

393- 

2  Ibid.,  note.  s  Ibid.,  390-391. 


104 

But  a  group  of  letters,  most  of  them  discovered  only  recently, 
indicate  that  it  may  be  inaccurate.  These  epistles  were  written 
by  Jonson  and  Chapman  in  the  year  1605,  to  the  King,  the  Lord 
Chamberlain,  and  various  influential  patrons.  They  show  that 
the  two  distinguished  poets  were  at  this  time  in  prison,  and  se- 
riously concerned  about  their  fate,  —  "committed  hether,"  as 
Jonson  complained,  "  unexamyned,  nay  unheard  (a  rite  not  com- 
monlie  denyed  to  the  greatest  offenders)."  Their  alleged  crime 
was  a  play,  not  named,  which  had  apparently  given  offense  to 
the  King.  It  had  been  utterly  misconstrued  and  misapplied, 
the  poets  asserted,  and  the  offensive  matter  was  only  in  "  two 
clawses,  and  both  of  them  not  our  owne."  1 

Was  this  imprisonment  that  which  resulted  from  Eastward 
Hoe  ?  Or  were  Jonson  and  Chapman  twice  in  custody  together 
during  the  year  1605?  Recent  opinion  has  tended  to  the  view 
that  the  letters  refer  to  the  Eastward  Hoe  affair.  This  seems 
indeed  probable,  though  in  that  case  Jonson's  account  of  the 
matter,  as  reported  by  Drummond,  is  inaccurate.  He  did  not 
imprison  himself  voluntarily  with  his  fellow-authors;  and  Mar- 
ston  was  not  in  prison  with  them.  Mr.  Dobell,  the  discoverer 
of  most  of  the  letters  in  question,  adopts  this  view,2  as  does  Mr. 
Schelling,  in  his  recent  edition  of  Eastward  Hoe.3  Mr.  Fleay, 
who  knew  only  one  of  the  letters,  thought  that  this  imprisonment 
of  the  two  poets  resulted  from  Sejanus,  in  which  they  had  col- 
laborated.4 The  latest  writer  on  Jonson,  M.  Castelain,  in  an 
elaborate  discussion  of  the  affair,  holds  that  this  trouble  for 
Chapman  and  Jonson  was  the  result  neither  of  Seja?ms  nor  of 
Eastward  Hoe,  but  probably  of  Sir  Giles  Goosecap,  an  anony- 
mous comedy  which  seems  to  have  caused  some  difficulty  with 
the  censor  on  the  occasion  of  its  publication.5 

1  Jonson's  letter  to  the  Earl  of  Salisbury  is  printed  in  Clifford's  edition  of  his 
works,  I,  cxvii-cxviii.  The  other  letters  were  first  published  in  the  Athencrum, 
March  30,  1901.  All  are  conveniently  reprinted  in  Schelling's  edition  of  the 
play  in  the  Belles  Lettres  Series. 

2  Athenceum,  March  30,  1901.  3  Belles  Lettres  Series. 
*  English  Drama,  I,  347. 

6  Castelain,  Ben  Jonson,  901  ff.  On  Sir  Giles  Goosecap  see  also  Fleay,  Eng- 
lish Drama,  II,  322-323;  and  T.  M.  Parrott,  The  Authorship  of  Sir  Gyles 
Goosecappe,  in  Modern  Philology,  IV,  no.  1  (July,  1906). 


105 

The  cases  made  out  for  Sejanus  and  Sir  Giles  Goosecap  seem 
by  no  means  convincing.  In  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge 
we  may  say  that  the  letters  in  question,  apparently  refer  most 
probably  to  Eastward  Hoc,  though  this  solution  also  presents 
difficulties.  From  our  point  of  view  the  problem  is  not  of  great 
importance.  We  know,  at  all  events,  that  two  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished poets  of  their  time  were  imprisoned  because  of  po- 
litical or  personal  allusions,  in  one  or  more  plays,  distasteful  to 
the  King  and  others ;  that  for  a  time  they  feared  serious  conse- 
quences, but  that  their  appeals  to  powerful  patrons  soon  brought 
about  their  release. 

According  to  Mr.  Fleay,  the  trouble  about  Eastward  Hoe 
caused  the  inhibition  of  the  Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels,  who 
lost  the  Queen's  patronage  and  for  some  time  thereafter  acted  as 
"their  own  masters,"  under  the  name  of  the  Children  of  the 
Revels.1  How  the  company  could  have  retained  the  right  to  per- 
form, if  it  had  lost  its  royal  patent,  is  not  apparent ;  nor  does  it 
seem  likely  that  so  severe  a  penalty  would  have  been  imposed 
for  this  offense.  But  until  the  very  confused  history  of  the 
children's  companies  during  this  decade  is  at  least  partially 
cleared  up,  it  is  impossible  to  say  how  dearly  the  Revels  com- 
pany paid  for  its  indiscretion. 

The  same  players  were  again  in  trouble  a  few  years  later  — 
in  1608  —  because  of  their  production  of  Biron,s  Conspiracy 
and  B iron's  Tragedy  by  Chapman,  whose  fondness  for  treating 
contemporary  foreign  history,  and  disrespectful  portrayal  of 
foreign  royalty,  now  involved  him  in  difficulties.  M.  de  Beau- 
mont, the  French  Ambassador,  had  tried  to  prevent  the  per- 
formance of  the  plays,  but  without  avail.  "I  caused  certain 
players  to  be  forbid  from  acting  the  history  of  the  Duke  of 
Biron,"  he  writes  on  April  5,  1608.  "When  however  they  saw 
that  the  whole  court  had  left  town,  they  persisted  in  acting  it ; 
nay,  they  brought  upon  the  stage  the  Queen  of  France  and 
Mademoiselle  de  Verneuil.  The  former,  having  first  accosted 
the  latter  with  very  hard  words,  gave  her  a  box  on  the  ear. 


1  London  Stage,  209.     See  also  Thorndike,  Influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
on  Shakspere,  20. 


106 

At  my  suit  three  of  them  were  arrested ;  but  the  principal  per- 
son, the  author,  escaped."  '  From  a  letter  of  Chapman's,  thank- 
ing the  Duke  of  Lennox  for  a  safe  retreat,  it  appears  probable 
that  that  nobleman  sheltered  the  poet  during  this  difficulty.2 
There  is  extant  another  letter  by  Chapman  which  seems  to 
refer  to  the  two  parts  of  Biron  and  which  was  apparently  writ- 
ten a  little  later,  when  he  was  endeavoring  to  have  them 
licensed  for  the  press.3  He  is  evidently  addressing  the  censor 
— presumably  Sir  George  Buc,  though  no  name  is  given — and 
is  highly  indignant  at  this  gentleman's  refusal  to  allow  the 
printing  of  the  plays.  It  appears  from  the  poet's  words  that 
at  some  time — whether  after  or  before  the  Ambassador's  com- 
plaint is  not  apparent  —  the  Privy  Council  had  thrice  given 
special  permission  for  the  performance  of  the  two  dramas. 
"  If  the  thrice  allowance  of  the  Counsaile  for  the  Presentment 
gave  not  weight  enoughe  to  draw  yours  after  for  the  presse, 
my  Breath  is  a  hopeles  adition."  On  Chapman's  application 
for  license  to  print,  the  censor  had  evidently  complained  that 
offensive  lines  were  spoken  at  the  performance,  and  refused  his 
allowance  for  the  press.  The  poet  retorts  indignantly  that  he 
did  his  "  uttermost  "  to  suppress  the  offensive  passages  and 
could  do  no  more.  "  I  see  not  myne  owne  Plaies;  nor  carrie 
the  Actors  Tongues  in  my  mouthe."  The  objection  to  these 
plays  he  considers  highly  unreasonable  and  unjust.  "  Whoso- 
ever it  were  that  first  plaied  the  bitter  Informer  before  the 
frenche  Ambassador  for  a  matter  so  far  from  offence;  And  of 
so  much  honor  for  his  maister  as  those  two  partes  containe, 
perform'd  it  with  the  Gall  of  a  Wulff,  and  not  of  a  man." 
Driven  by  his  wrath  to  cast  prudence  aside,  Chapman  boldly 
reproaches  Buc  for  his  refusal  and  withdraws  the  request  for 
a  license.  "  But  how  safely  soever  Illiterate  Aucthoritie  setts 
up  his  Bristles  against  Poverty,  methinkes  yours  (being  accom 
panied  with  learning)  should  rebate  the  pointes  of  them,  and 
soften  the  ficrcenes  of  those  rude  manners ;  you  know  Sr,  They 
are  sparkes  of  the  lowest  fier  in   Nature  that  fly  out  uppon 

1  Raumer,  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Centuries,  II,  219. 

2  Letter  printed  in  Athenaum,  April  6,  1901. 
» Ibid. 


107 

weaknes  with  every  puffe  of  Power;  I  desier  not  you  should 
drenche  your  hand  in  the  least  daunger  for  mce :  And  therefore 
(with  entreatie  of  my  Papers  returne)  I  cease  ever  to  trouble 
you."  This  spirited  letter  is  signed  'fBy  the  poore  subject  of 
your  office  for  the  present." 

Possibly  some  of  Chapman's  powerful  patrons  again  came 
to  his  aid.  At  all  events,  negotiations  with  the  censor  were 
evidently  resumed  almost  at  once  and  a  compromise  effected, 
for  on  June  5  of  the  same  year,  1608,  the  two  parts  of  Biron 
are  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  under  Buc's  license.1 
To  secure  this  allowance  Chapman  had  to  sacrifice  a  consid- 
erable portion  of  the  plays,  to  which  he  refers  in  the  Dedica- 
tion as  "these  poor  dismembered  poems."  Act  II  of  the  Trag- 
edy is  entirely  omitted,  —  presumably  the  part  containing  the 
scene  which  offended  the  French  Ambassador.  From  the  Con- 
spiracy it  appears  that  Chapman  had  also  been  indiscreet  in 
representing  English  royalty.  Act  IV  is  obviously  a  recasting 
in  narrative  form  of  a  scene  at  the  English  Court  in  which 
Queen  Elizabeth  had  appeared  and  discoursed  at  length  upon 
political  affairs,  and  which  probably  contained  imprudent  allu- 
sions to  the  Essex  Rebellion.2  The  sadly  mutilated  condition 
of  the  two  plays  shows  that  the  censor  had  been  aroused  to 
severe  measures,  and  it  seems  very  likely,  as  has  been  already 
suggested,  that  it  was  the  scandal  attendant  upon  these  dramas 
which  caused  the  edict  against  "  the  representing  of  any  mod- 
ern Christian  kings."3 

In  the  same  despatch  in  which  Beaumont  Uells  of  Biron  he 
informs  us  that  some  of  the  players  were  still  recklessly  satirizing 
the  King  upon  the  stage.  "One  or  two  days  before,  they  had 
brought  forward  their  own  King,  and  all  his  favourites,  in  a  very 
strange  fashion.  They  made  him  curse  and  swear  because  he 
had  been  robbed  of  a  bird,  and  beat  a  gentleman  because  he  had 


1  Arber,  Transcript,  III,  380. 

3  See  Fleay,  English  Drama,  II,  62-64;  London  Stage,  185;  Koeppel,  Quel- 
Un-Studien  zu  den  Dramen  George  Chapman's,  24  ff.  Koeppel's  conclusions 
as  to  the  sources  of  the  plays  are  corrected  by  F.  S.  Boas  in  the  Athenaum, 
January  10,  1903. 

3  See  below,  p.  119. 


<\ 


l(js 

called  off  the  hounds  from  the  scent.  ^  They  represent  him  as 
drunk  at  least  once  a  day,  &cA  He  has  upon  this  made  order 
that  no  play  shall  be  henceforth'  acted  in  London ;  for  the  re- 
peal of  which  order,  they  have  already  offered  100,000  livres. 
Perhaps  the  permission  will  be  again  granted,  but  upon  condi- 
tion that  they  represent  no  recent  history,  nor  speak  of  the 
present  time."  kl  Possibly  the  Ambassador  was  exaggerating  the 
rigor  of  the  order  which  resulted  from  these  plays.  But  ap- 
parently one  or  more  companies  got  into  rather  serious  trouble 
because  of  their  impertinence. 

That  severe  measures  were  sometimes  taken  against  sacri-^ 
legious  and  libellous  performances,  appears  from  a  report  of  a 
Star  Chamber  trial  in  May,  1610.  The  case  was  that  of  Henry, 
Earl  of  Lincoln,  against  Sir  Edward  Dymock  and  others,  "for 
contriving  and  acting  a  stage  play  on  a  Sabbath  day,  on  a  May- 
pole green  near  Sir  Edward  Dymock's  house,  containing  scurri- 
lous and  slanderous  matter  against  the  said  Earl  by  name." 
After  the  play  ended,  one  of  the  actors,  it  appears,  "attired  like 
a  minister,  went  up  into  the  pulpit  attached  to  the  Maypole  with 
a  book  in  his  hands,  and  did  most  profanely,  in  derision  of  the 
holy  exercise  of  preaching,  pronounce  vain  and  scurrilous  mat- 
ter, and  afterwards  affixed  to  the  Maypole  an  infamous  libel 
against  the  said  Earl."  The  punishments  ordered  for  these 
\  offenses  were  extremely  heavy.  The  three  principal  actors  were 
sentenced  to  be  pilloried  and  whipped  at  Westminster  Hall ;  and 
then  to  be  taken  into  Lincolnshire  and  suffer  the  same  punish- 
ments again.  Here  they  were  also  to  "acknowledge  their 
offenses  and  to  ask  God  and  the  Earl  forgiveness,"  and  to  pay  a 
fine  of  £300  apiece.  Sir  Edward  Dymock,  as  privy  and  consent- 
ing to  the  performance,  was  to  be  committed  to  the  Fleet  during 
the  King's  pleasure,  and  to  be  fined  ^iooo.2  The  offense  was 
evidently  a  serious  one;  and  the  severity  of  the  punishments 
ordered  shows  what  fate  might  befall  players  who  were,  as  these 
seem  to  have  been,  without  patent  or  powerful  patron. 

At  about  this  time  Tilney  died,  and  Buc  came  into  complete 

1  Raumer,  op.  cit.,  II,  219-220. 

1  Historical  MSS.  Commission  Reports,  III,  57. 


109 

possession  of  the  Revels  Office.  An  interesting  manuscript 
play-book,  dating  from  161 1,  the  year  after  Tilney's  death,  illus- 
trates the  sort  of  "reformations"  which  Hue  made  in  the  plays 
submitted  to  him  for  license.  This  is  Lansdowne  MS.  807, 
of  the  play  which  Hue  named  the  Second  Maiden's  Tragedy, 
apparently  from  its  slight  resemblance  to  the  Maid's  Tragedy, 
by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  "This  Second  Mayden's  Tragedy 
(for  it  has  no  name  inscribed)  may  with  the  reformacions  bee 
acted  publikely.  31.  October.  1611.  G.  Bug"  It  was  generally 
customary  to  name  the  play  in  the  license  to  act,  and  as  this 
lacked  a  title,  Buc  thus  supplied  one.1 

The  manuscript  contains  some  markings  and  erasures  by  the 
author  or  the  manager,  to  shorten  it  for  acting  purposes,  and  it  is 
not  always  possible  to  distinguish  these  from  the  censor's  expur- 
gations. Sometimes  Buc  made  a  cross  in  the  margin  to  call 
attention  to  his  reformations,  but  not  always. 

The  plot  represents  the  love  of  a  Lady  (unnamed)  for  the 
deposed  King,  Govianus,  and  the  efforts  of  the  usurping  Tyrant 
to  force  her  to  become  his  mistress,  —  a  fate  which  she  finally 
escapes  by  her  suicide.  Evidently  the  censor  was  sensitive  on 
the  subject  of  kings'  mistresses  and  vice  in  high  places,  and  he  \y 
struck  out  many  lines  portraying  or  denouncing  the  royal  lust,  — 
apparently  on  the  ground  that  such  suggestions  were  disrespect- 
ful to  the  Sovereign.  For  example,  in  Act  II,  Scene  i,  in  Hel- 
vetius'  speech  urging  his  daughter  to  become  the  King's  mistress, 
nine  and  a  half  lines,  beginning  "  That  glister  in  the  sun  of  prince's 
favours,"  are  marked  for  omission.2  In  the  same  scene,  where 
Govianus  bitterly  reproaches  Helvetius  for  urging  his  daughter 
to  this  dishonor,  thirty-one  lines,  commencing  "  Hadst  thou  been 
anything  beside  her  father,"  are  marked  in  the  margin,  appar- 
ently for  expurgation.     They  consist  of  violent  denunciation  of 

1  In  view  of  Buc's  explicit  statement  that  it  had  no  name,  it  is  surprising  to 
find  Mr.  Fleay  conjecturing,  "I  think  the  Master  of  the  Revels  objected  to  the 
true  title,  The  Usurping  Tyrant,  and  substituted  this."  (English  Drama,  II, 
331.) 

The  play  is  printed  in  the  Old  English  Drama,  I;  in  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  X; 
and,  with  the  best  text,  in  the  Chatto  and  Windus  edition  of  Chapman's  Works 
(1875)  among  "Doubtful  Plays  and  Fragments." 

2  Chatto  and  Windus  edition,  356;   Lansdowne  MS.  807,  folio  36. 


110 

Hclvetius  and  of  "the  lustful  king,  thy  master."  One  line  is 
crossed  through  as  especially  obnoxious  and  reflecting  upon 
morals  in  high  places,  —  the  second  of  the  following :  — 

"To  end  the  last  act  of  thy  life  in  pandarism, 
(As  you  perhaps  will  say  your  betters  do)." 

In  Hclvetius'  reply,  when  he  repents,  and  thanks  Govianus  for 
his  conversion,  "  Smart  on,  soul !"  and  the  five  following  lines  — 
a  passage  where  the  now  repentant  father  speaks  of  the  loath- 
someness of  his  offense  —  are  marked  for  omission.1  Similarly, 
in  Act  II,  Scene  iii,  when  Helvetius  violently  reproaches  the  King 
for  his  unlawful  passion,  the  six  lines  beginning  "You'll  prefer 
all  your  old  courtiers  to  good  services,"  and  the  last  three  of  the 
same  speech,  are  marked.2  So  also  in  Act  V,  Scene  ii,  are  twelve 
lines  of  Govianus'  denunciation  of  the  Tyrant,  beginning  "O 
thou  sacrilegious  villain  !"  3 

In  view  of  the  many  lustful  tyrants  freely  portrayed  in  the 
drama  of  the  period,  and  notably  in  the  recent  Maid's  Tragedy, 
to  which  Buc's  note  refers,  one  may  wonder  why  the  censor,  if 
the  marks  are  his,  or  the  manager,  chose  these  passages  for 
omission.  That  no  mere  feeling  of  decency  caused  the  expurga- 
tions is  evident  from  many  of  the  points  left  unmarked.  There 
is  no  doubt,  however,  about  the  final  passage  condemned  as  dis- 
respectful to  royalty.  In  Act  V,  Scene  ii,  when  the  expiring 
Tyrant  exclaims  "Your  king's  poison'd!"  Buc  drew  a  line 
through  these  words,  substituted  "I  am  poison'd !"  and  made  a 
cross  in  the  margin  to  call  especial  attention  to  this  reformation, 
—  the  propriety  of  which  is  evident  from  the  disrespectful  excla- 
mation with  which  Memphonius  greets  the  news,  "The  king  of 
heaven  be  praised  for  it!"  * 

Besides  these  passages  reflecting  on  royalty,  the  censor  has 
expurgated  lines  for  various  other  causes.  His  care  for  religion 
is  apparently  shown  in  the  omission  of  the  speech  of  the  humor- 
ous First  Soldier,  in  Act  V,  Scene  ii,  beginning  "  By  this  hand, 
mere  idolatry,"  and  in  its  reference  to  Latin  prayers  seeming 
to  allude  disrespectfully  to  the  Roman  Catholic  religion.5     An 

1  Chatto  and  Windus  edition,  357;    Lansdowne  MS.,  807,  folio  37. 

sp.  36i;f.  40.         sp.  378;  f.  54-         *  p.  379;   f-  55-         sP-377Jf-53- 


Ill 

amusing  instance  of  consideration  for  the  feelings  of  the  gentry 
is  to  be  seen  in  Act  IV,  Scene  i,  where  the  Wife  of  Votarius,  in 
speaking  of  the  loose  behavior  of  maidservants,  remarks  "  There's 
many  a  good  knight's  daughter  is  in  service,"  and  "  knight "  has 
been  carefully  altered  to  "  man."  x  In  Act  I,  Scene  i,  Govianus' 
speech  beginning  "Weighty  and  serious,"  a  fiercely  satirical 
portrait  of  the  Third  Nobleman,  is  marked  for  omission.2  As 
it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  plot,  it  may  have  been  a  hit  at  some 
actual  nobleman,  and  expurgated  for  this  reason. 

One  rather  surprising  set  of  "reformations"  is  to  be  found  in 
several  passages  reflecting  on  the  character  of  women.  Such 
consideration  for  the  feelings  of  the  weaker  sex  is  hardly  to  be 
expected  in  the  drama  of  the  period;  yet  the  purpose  of  these 
alterations  seems  evident,  and  some  of  them  are  unmistakably 
by  the  censor.  In  Act  I,  Scene  i,  in  a  speech  by  the  Tyrant,  the 
four  lines  beginning  "A  woman  to  set  light  by  sovereignty!" 
are  struck  out.3  They  are  rather  mild,  referring  to  women's 
desire  to  rule,  and  expressing  surprise  that  the  Lady  should  cleave 
to  the  deposed  king,  and  not  turn  her  affections  to  the  usurper. 
A  clearer  case  is  found  in  Act  III,  Scene  i,  when,  after  the  Lady 
has  killed  herself  to  escape  the  Tyrant's  passion,  Govianus 
ironically  remarks  that  few  women  would  have  acted  thus,  and 
declares  "They'll  rather  kill  themselves  with  lust  than  for  it." 
Lines  are  drawn  through  this  and  the  preceding  two  lines,  and 
Buc's  cross  in  the  margin  makes  clear  his  disapproval.4  He 
was  even  more  particular  in  Act  IV,  Scene  iii,  where  the  Tyrant 
laments  over  the  dead  body  of  the  Lady,  and  asserts  that  most 
women  would  have  advised  her  against  the  death  in  which  she 
sought  refuge  from  his  lawless  passion. 

"Hadst  thou  but  asked  th'  opinion  of  most  ladies, 
Thoud'st  never  come  to  this!" 

Buc  marks  a  large  cross  in  the  margin  and  alters  "  most  "  to 
"  many,"  producing  a  dire  effect  on  the  meter,  and  not  vastly 
greater  courtesy  to  the  feminine  sex.5 

The  Master's  care  in  expunging  oaths,  in  conformity  with  the 

1  p.  36cS;   f.  44.  J  p.  348;    f.  29.  s  p.  349;   *•  3°- 

4  p.  366;   f.  43.  »p.  372;   f.  49. 


112 

statute  of  1636/  is  frequently  apparent,  and  generally  disastrous 
to  the  meter.  "'Sheart"  or  "Heart,"  and  '"Slife"  or  "Life," 
he  often  crosses  out ;  nor  will  he  permit  "  By  th'  mass."  2  But  he 
frequently  nods,  and  passes  over  "Life."  "Faith,"  he  seems 
never  to  object  to,  as  Herbert  did  later.3 

Early  in  1613  occurs  a  case  of  interference  by  the  authorities 
which  is  not  altogether  easy  to  understand,  and  indeed  not  of  any 
particular  importance.  Some  London  apprentices,  apparently 
ambitious  in  amateur  theatricals,  gave  an  invitation  performance 
of  Taylor's  The  Hog  hath  Lost  his  Pearl,  in  the  YYhitefriars 
theater.  The  Sheriffs  broke  up  the  assemblage  and  imprisoned 
some  of  the  actors.  We  learn  of  all  this  from  the  following  letter 
of  Sir  Henry  Wotton  to  Sir  Edmund  Bacon :  — 

"On  Sunday  last  at  night,  and  no  longer,  some  sixteen  Apprentices 
(of  what  sort  you  shall  guess  by  the  rest  of  the  Story)  having  secretly 
learnt  a  new  Play  without  Book,  intituled,  The  Hog  hath  lost  his 
Pearl;  took  up  the  White  Fryers  for  their  Theatre:  and  having 
invited  thither  (as  it  should  seem)  rather  their  Mistresses  than  their 
Masters;  who  were  all  to  enter  per  buletini  for  a  note  of  distinction 
from  ordinary  Comedians.  Towards  the  end  of  the  Play,  the  Sheriffs 
(who  by  chance  had  heard  of  it)  came  in  (as  they  say)  and  carried 
some  six  or  seven  of  them  to  perform  the  last  Act  at  Bridewel;  the 
rest  are  fled.  Now  it  is  strange  to  hear  how  sharp-witted  the  City  is, 
for  they  will  needs  have  Sir  John  Swinerton  the  Lord  Maior  be  meant 
by  the  Hog,  and  the  late  Lord  Treasurer  by  the  Pearl."  4 

Just  what  is  the  meaning  of  "a  new  Play  without  Book"  no 
one  seems  to  have  conjectured.  Possibly  it  refers  to  the  absence 
of  a  licensed  play-book,  —  that  is,  of  authorization  by  the  Master 
of  the  Revels.  The  Prologue,  in  the  edition  of  1614,  bears  out 
this  idea,  for  it  states  that  the  play  was  "  tossed  from  one  house 
to  another,"  until  it  had  "a  knight's  license"  and  might  "range 
at  pleasure,"  —  that  is,  until  it  received  Sir  George  Buc's  au- 
thorization. That  he  did  at  some  time  license  this  play,  we  know 
from  a  note  by  Herbert  in  later  years.5  Whether  the  Sheriffs 
broke  up  the  first  performance  because  the  apprentices  had  no 

1  See  above,  pp.  19-20. 

2  For  examples  of  these  corrections,  see  folios  34,  35,  38,  43,  49,  etc. 

s  See  below,  p.  128.  *  Rcliquia  Wottoniana  (1672  edition),  402-403. 

1 1S21  Variorum,  III,  263,  note. 


113 

license  for  their  acting  or  for  the  play;  or  because,  as  Mr.  Fleay 
states,  the  production  was  on  Sunday; l  or  because  of  the  sup- 
posed representation  of  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the  late  Lord 
Treasurer,  we  cannot  now  say.  The  Prologue  indicates  that 
there  had  been  considerable  question  of  these  alleged  allusions, 
for  it  expressly  disclaims  any  "grunting  at  state-affairs"  and 
"inverting  at  city  vices."  2 

The  next  few  years  of  Buc's  administration  show  several  cases 
of  interference  by  the  government.  The  first  of  these  is  appar- 
ently an  interesting  survival  of  a  sort  of  Roman  Catholic  contro- 
versial morality.  In  1614,  at  Sir  John  York's  house  in  York- 
shire, there  was  a  private  performance  of  a  "scandalous  play 
acted  in  favor  of  Popery,"  in  which  the  Devil  declared  that  all 
Protestants  were  eternally  lost,  and  carried  King  James  off  on 
his  back  to  the  fiery  lower  regions.  For  this  seditious  perform- 
ance, Sir  John  York,  his  wife,  and  his  brother  were  fined  and 
imprisoned.3  A  less  flagrant  case  occurred  in  161 7,  when  the 
Privy  Council  interfered  to  prevent  the  production  of  a  play  rep- 
resenting Marshal  d'Ancre.  On  June  22  they  wrote  as  follows 
to  the  Master  of  the  Revels.  "We  are  informed  that  there  are 
certain  Players,  or  Comedians,  we  know  not  of  what  Company, 
that  go  about  to  play  some  enterlude  concerning  the  late  Mar- 
quesse  d'Ancre,  which  for  many  respects  we  think  not  fit  to  be 
suffered.  We  do  therefore  require  you,  upon  your  peril,  to  take 
order  that  the  same  be  not  represented  or  played  in  any  place 
about  this  City,  or  elsewhere  where  you  have  authority."  4  As 
the  responsibility  for  the  Marshal's  death  was  assumed  by  the 
young  King  Louis  XIII,  this  proceeding  was  directed  by  obvious 
political  caution.5 

1  London  Stage,  251. 

2  The  title-page  —  not  the  Wotton  letter,  as  Mr.  Fleay  says  —  states  that  the 
play  was  "divers  times  publicly  acted  by  certain  London  Prentices."  See  Fleay, 
English  Drama,  II,  256. 

The  play  is  printed  in  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  XI. 

s  Slate  Papers,  Dom.,  1611-1618,  242;  1628-1629,  333;  Historical  MSS. 
Commission  Reports,  III,  63. 

*  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  391-392;   Chalmers,  Apology,  492. 

'See  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  III,  234,  note;  and  an  interesting 
document  in  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1611-1618,  461. 

1 


114 

By  far  the  most  interesting  example  of  the  censorship  in  Buc's 
administration  is  that  of  the  admirable  historical  tragedy,  Sir 
John  Van  Olden  Barnevelt,  probably  by  Fletcher  and  Massinger.1 
The  patriot  Barnevelt,  devoted  and  successful  servant  of  his 
country,  but  opponent  of  the  warlike  policies  of  the  ambitious 
Maurice  of  Orange,  was  arrested  for  treason  and  executed  by 
order  of  that  Prince  on  May  13, 1619.  In  view  of  the  great  interest 
felt  by  the  English  in  the  affairs  of  the  Low  Countries,  and  the 
dramatic  features  of  the  story,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  subject 
should  have  been  chosen  for  a  play.  Within  three  months  after 
Barnevelt's  death,  his  career  was  ready  for  presentation  on  the 
London  stage.  On  August  14  Thomas  Locke  wrote  to  Carleton, 
the  English  Ambassador  at  The  Hague,  "The  Players  heere  were 
bringing  of  Barnevelt  vpon  the  stage,  and  had  bestowed  a  great 
deale  of  money  to  prepare  all  things  for  the  purpose,  but  at  th' 
instant  were  prohibited  by  my  Lo:  of  London."  2  "My  Lord 
of  London"  apparently  means  John  King,  Bishop  of  London,3 
who  may  have  objected  to  the  play  on  account  of  its  connection 
with  the  Arminian  controversy,  which  had  aroused  some  excite- 
ment in  England.  Barnevelt,  in  the  drama,  professes  himself  an 
Arminian.4  Whatever  the  Bishop's  objection,  it  was  apparently 
not  insuperable,  for  on  August  27  another  letter  from  Locke  to 
Carleton  says,  "Our  players  have  fownd  the  meanes  to  goe 
through  wth  the  play  of  Barnevelt,  and  it  hath  had  many  spec- 
tators and  receaued  applause."  5  The  surviving  manuscript 6 
shows  the  corrections  made  by  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  but  no 
license  to  act.  Possibly  this  was  written  on  some  sheet  now  lost ; 
or  it  may  have  been  refused,  and  the  play  performed  without  his 
authorization.     We  have,  however,  no  further  indication  that 


1  Printed  in  Bullen,  Old  Plays,  II,  201  ff.      On  the  authorship,  see  note  by 
Boyle,  ibid.,  434  ff. 

2  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1619-1623,  71.     Printed  in  full  in  Bullen,  Old  Plays,  IV, 

381. 

3  See  Sidney  Lee,  in  Bullen,  op.  cit.,  IV,  381.     The  title  is  so  interpreted  also  in 
the  State  Papers.     Mr.  Fleay  understands  it  otherwise.     See  above,  p.  19,  note. 

4  Act  I,  Scene  ii. 

1  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1619-1623,  73.     Printed  in  full  in  Bullen,  Old  Plays, 
IV,  381. 

8  British  Museum  Add.  MS.  18,653. 


115 

the  tragedy  was  offensive  to  the  government,  except  the  fact  that 
it  was  never  printed,  either  in  the  Fletcher  Folios  or  elsewhere. 

This  striking  political  tragedy  preserves  in  tone  a  balance 
between  sympathy  for  Barnevelt  and  support  of  the  Prince  of 
Orange.  In  the  earlier  scenes,  the  great  Advocate  is  not  pre- 
sented as  an  admirable  character,  —  rather  as  a  political  in- 
triguer, ambitious,  proud,  and  egotistical.  In  the  latter  part,  how- 
ever, he  is  nobly  and  sympathetically  portrayed,  —  as  one  who 
has  done  great  services  for  his  country,  as  the  beloved  leader  of 
the  people,  as  the  spokesman  of  political  liberty.  The  Prince 
of  Orange  is  throughout  treated  with  almost  unvarying  respect. 
He  is  sympathetically  represented  as  a  brave  and  noble  leader, 
generously  unwilling  to  punish  Barnevelt  and  the  other  con- 
spirators, but  finally  submitting  to  the  insistence  of  the  Coun- 
cil.x  The  unimportant  character  of  the  Englishwoman  seems 
to  be  introduced  chiefly  to  speak  in  favor  of  the  Prince  and  in 
contempt  of  his  opponents.  As  the  play  goes  on,  however,  and 
Barnevelt  appears  more  admirable,  the  figure  of  Maurice  becomes 
less  attractive. 

Though  the  attitude  of  the  authors  towards  the  English 
Sovereign  is  unfailingly  respectful,  the  references  to  James,  to 
the  Gowry  conspiracy,  and  to  the  Gunpowder  Plot  being  in 
phrases  of  impeccable  loyalty,  the  dangerous  political  analogy 
of  the  play  is  obvious.  As  Mr.  Boyle  has  very  well  put  it, 
"  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  audience  wandered  away  in  their 
thoughts  from  Sir  John  Van  Olden  Barnevelt,  the  saviour  of 
his  country  from  the  Spanish  yoke,  as  he  professed  himself  in 
his  defense  on  his  trial,  and  Spain's  determined  enemy,  to  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh,  whose  head  had  just  fallen  on  the  block,  the 
victim  of  a  perfidious  foe  and  of  a  mean,  shuffling  king."  2  Nor 
could  the  passion  for  civil  liberty,  which  breaks  in  one  scene  into 
fiery  eloquence,  have  gone  unrebuked  under  the  Stuart  despot- 
ism. 

If  Buc's  corrections  of  the  Second  Maiden's  Tragedy  show  the 
sort  of  "reformation"  he  administered  to  romantic  tragedies 
and  tragi-comedies,  this  manuscript  reveals  his  attitude  towards 

1  See  especially  Act  III,  Scene  ii. 

1  Note  by  Boyle,  in  Bullen,  Old  Plays,  II,  434. 


116 

political  and  historical  dramas.  He  was  evidently  somewhat 
disturbed  at  the  representation  upon  the  stage  of  the  Prince  of 
Orange.  To  make  the  indiscretion  less  obvious,  he  twice  strikes 
out  "  Prince  of  Orange,"  and  substitutes  "the  valiant  Prince,"  or 
"this  Prince  that  contemns  us,"  adding  his  warning  cross  in  the 
margin.1  In  Act  I,  Scene  iii,  the  Prince  has  been  speaking  of 
the  ingratitude  and  disrespect  shown  him,  and  the  Guard  now 
refuses  him  admittance  to  the  Council  Chamber.  At  this  point 
Buc  notes  in  the  margin,  "I  like  not  this:  neither  do  I  think 
that  the  pr.  was  thus  disgracefully  used,  besides  he  is  too  much 
presented,"  and  signs  his  initials,  "G.  B."  2 

Some  of  Buc's  expurgations  were  made  so  effectively  that  it 
is  impossible  to  decipher  the  text  beneath.  In  Act  I,  Scene  i, 
for  example,  on  the  first  folio  of  the  manuscript,  he  has  twice 
marked  out  words  and  placed  a  cross  on  the  margin;  but  the 
condemned  phrases  are  illegible.  And  at  the  end  of  the  same 
scene,  a  speech  thirteen  lines  long  is  entirely  obliterated.3  Sim- 
ilarly, in  Act  II,  Scene  i,  when  Barnevelt  is  speaking  against  the 
Prince  of  Orange  and  against  tyranny,  six  lines  are  scored  through 
and  two  crosses  made.4  In  the  trial  scene,  also,  after  the  Prince's 
speech  rehearsing  Barnevelt 's  faults,  twenty  lines  are  expurgated 
by  the  censor's  pen.5  Mr.  Bullen  thinks  that  these  last,  as  well 
as  twenty-six  lines  shortly  before  and  about  twenty  immediately 
following,  were  cut  out  by  the  author,  to  shorten  the  scene.  But 
it  seems  possible  in  this  play  to  distinguish  the  two  sorts  of  cor- 
rection. Buc  draws  a  horizontal  line  through  the  text,  and  puts 
crosses  in  the  margin,  —  three  of  them,  in  the  course  of  these 
twenty  lines.  The  author  makes  a  sort  of  curly  line  through 
the  text,  without  marginal  mark.  It  was  he,  apparently,  who 
cut  out  the  other  forty  or  more  erased  lines  in  this  scene,  probably 
to  make  it  harmonize  with  the  censor's  reformations.6 

On  the  whole,  the  Master's  corrections  evidently  involved  a 

'Bullen,  Old  Plays,  II,  218,  231;  Add.  MS.  18,653,  folios  4,  7.  At  two 
other  points,  however,  the  full  title  of  Prince  of  Orange  is  left  undisturbed 
(PP-  233.  245.  folios  9,  11). 

2  p.  222;   f.  5.     And  see  Bullen,  op.  at.,  II,  204. 

3  p.  216;   f.  3.  4p.  233;   f.  9.  8p.  289;   f.  23. 

'  A  similar  erasure  by  the  author  is  to  be  seen  on  folio  9,  at  the  opening  of 
Act  II,  Scene  ii. 


117 

considerable  portion  of  the  play.  But  it  docs  not  appear  that 
Buc  was  unreasonably  severe.  He  left  in  some  passages  which 
might  have  been  judged  at  the  time  irreverent  to  royalty.  For 
example,  the  eloquent  speeches  of  Barnevclt  in  Act  III,  Scene  i, 
in  which  he  proudly  refuses  to  submit  to  the  Prince  and  seek 
his  mercy,  are  unexpurgated,  —  notably  the  lines  — 

"What  is  this  man,  this  Prince,  this  God  ye  make  now, 
But  what  our  hands  have  molded?"  ' 

In  the  strikingly  fine  speech  of  Barnevelt  at  the  end  of  his 
trial,  however,  the  voice  of  protest  against  despotism  and  eulogy 
of  political  liberty  rang  out  too  unmistakably;  and  Buc  saw  the 
danger.  The  alterations  here  are  undoubtedly  by  the  censor's 
pen,  showing  his  horizontal  lines  through  the  text  and  his  warn- 
ing crosses  in  the  margin.  The  significant  passage  of  the  speech 
is  the  following  close :  — 

"You  rise,  and  I  grow  tedious;    let  me  take 
My  farwell  of  you  yet,  and  at  the  place 
Where  I  have  oft  byn  heard;    and,  as  my  life 
Was  ever  fertile  of  good  councells  for  you, 
It  shall  not  be  in  the  last  moment  barren. 
Octavius,  when  he  did  affect  the  Empire 
And  strove  to  tread  upon  the  neck  of  Rome 
And  all  hir  ancient  freedoms,  tooke  that  course 
That  now  is  practisd  on  you;    for  the  Catos 
And  all  free  sperritts  slaine  or  els  proscribd 
That  durst  have  stir'd  against  him,  he  then  sceasd 
The  absolute  rule  of  all.     You  can  apply  this: 
And  here  I  prophecie  I,  that  have  lyvd 
And  dye  a  free  man,  shall  when  I  am  ashes 
Be  sensible  of  your  groanes  and  wishes  for  me; 
And  when  too  late  you  see  this  Goverment 
Changd  to  a  Monarchie  youll  howle  in  vaine 
And  wish  you  had  a  Barnevelt  againe. 
Now  lead  me  where  you  will:    a  speedy  Sentence: 
I  am  ready  for  it  and  'tis  all  I  ask  you." 

The  shocking  application  which  might  be  made  of  all  this 
was  apparent  to  Buc.     He  evidently  first  corrected  the  most 

1  p.  248;  f.  12. 


118 

offensive  phrases.  He  struck  out  "tooke  that  course  That  now 
is  practise!  on  you,"  and  wrote  in  the  margin  "  cutt  of  his  oppo- 
sites."  He  crossed  out  the  too  significant  "You  can  apply 
this";  and  he  altered  "to  a  Monarchic"  to  read  "to  another 
forme."  Then,  apparently  deciding  that  the  whole  passage 
was  too  dangerous,  and  should  be  entirely  omitted  or  radically 
altered,  he  drew  a  line  through  all  the  text  from  "Octavius" 
through  "howle  in  vaine."  *  The  example  is  an  interesting 
one,  and  shows  in  an  unmistakable  manner  the  fate  that  awaited 
any  expression  in  the  drama  of  revolt  against  the  Stuart  tyranny 
and  craving  for  the  ancient  liberties  of  Englishmen. 

No  other  notable  case  of  censorship  occurs  until  the  admin- 
istration of  Herbert,  whose  Office  Book  gives  us  many  vivid 
glimpses  of  the  sort  of  supervision  he  exercised  over  the  drama. 
Stage  historians  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  Sir  Henry  as 
a  rather  pedantic,  interfering  censor,  with  sensibilities  almost 
puritanical.  But  we  get  this  impression  of  him  chiefly  because 
we  know  so  much  about  him.  His  Office  Book,  often  more 
like  a  diary,  reveals  him  intimately  as  a  somewhat  pompous 
person,  rather  particular  in  his  duties  at  times.  If  we  had  Til- 
ney's  and  Buc's  Registers,  however,  the  earlier  Masters  might 
appear  to  have  been  equally  exacting.  Indeed,  Herbert's 
"reformations"  were  apparently  no  more  detailed  and  fussy  than 
those  of  Buc  in  the  Second  Maiden's  Tragedy;  and  I  see  no 
reason  for  accusing  him  of  Puritan  sympathies  except  the  ex- 
purgation of  oaths,  to  which  he  was  bound  by  the  statute  and 
which  Buc  had  practised  before  him.2  He  said  he  was  more 
strict  with  the  poets  than  his  predecessors  had  been ; 3  but  the 
scenes  which  he  passed  without  comment  indicate  that  his  con- 
cern was  by  no  means  a  puritanically  moral  one. 

The  first  important  case  of  his  administration  shows  him  as 
rather  lenient  than  otherwise.  For  years  public  feeling  had  been 
running  high  against  James'  feeble  policy  of  friendship  with 
Spain,  culminating  in  the  project  of  the  marriage  of  Charles, 
Prince  of  Wales,  with  the  Infanta  Maria.  In  Gondomar, 
Spanish  Ambassador  at  London,  the  people  saw  the  very  incar- 

1  p.  292;  f.  24.  'See  above,  pp.  111-112.  'See  above,  p.  82. 


119 

nation  of  the  Spanish  and  Jesuitical  intrigue  which  they  so  hated. 
But  the  proposed  match  fell  through.  In  October,  1623,  to 
the  joy  of  the  English,  Charles  and  Buckingham  returned  from 
Madrid  without  the  Spanish  bride;  James'  policy  was  finally 
overturned ;  and  Buckingham  now  headed  the  movement  against 
Spain.  In  March,  1624,  war  was  declared  between  the  two 
countries,  and  in  August  the  playwright  Middleton  seized  this 
opportunity  of  catching  the  popular  fancy  by  embodying  in  a 
symbolical  play  the  hatred  of  Spanish  intrigue  and  the  joy  at 
its  defeat.  His  famous  Game  at  Chess,  under  the  thin  disguise 
of  the  pieces  on  a  chess-board,  sets  forth  a  story  of  perfidious 
Jesuit  plotting  and,  more  notably,  a  portrayal  of  the  visit  of 
Charles  and  Buckingham  to  the  Spanish  Court.  The  White 
and  Black  Kings  and  Queens  respectively  represent  the  English 
and  Spanish  sovereigns.  The  White  Knight  seems  to  be  Charles, 
the  White  Duke,  Buckingham,  and  —  to  omit  the  other  char- 
acters —  the  Black  Knight  is  a  scurrilously  bitter  portrait  of 
Gondomar.1 

In  spite  of  the  almost  unparalleled  boldness  of  this  treatment 
of  current  events,  the  play  obtained  Herbert's  official  license,  and 
was  acted  by  the  King's  company  at  the  Globe  nine  times,  amid 
great  enthusiasm.  Then,  upon  the  complaint  of  the  Spanish 
Ambassador  to  the  King,  the  Game  at  Chess  was  suppressed. 
The  official  correspondence,  which  has  survived,  throws  an 
interesting  light  on  the  affair.2  On  August  12  Mr.  Secretary 
Conway  sent  the  following  letter  to  the  Privy  Council :  — 

"His  Majesty  hath  received  information  from  the  Spanish  Am- 
bassador of  a  very  scandalous  comedy  acted  publickly  by  the  King's 
players,  wherein  they  take  the  boldness  and  presumption,  in  a  rude 
and  dishonourable  fashion,  to  represent  on  the  stage  the  persons  of 
his  Majesty,  the  King  of  Spain,  the  Conde  de  Gondomar,  the  Bishop 
of  Spalato,  &c.  His  Majesty  remembers  well  there  was  a  command- 
ment and  restraint  given  against  the  representing  of  any  modern 
Christian  kings  in  those  stage-plays;    and  wonders  much  both  at  the 

1  For  a  full  and  excellent  account  of  the  play  and  the  circumstances  of  its 
production,  see  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  II,  524  ff.  On  the  identifi- 
cation of  the  characters,  see  also  Fleay,  English  Drama,  II,  106. 

2  Printed  in  part  in  Chalmers,  Apology,  496  ff. ;  in  Dyce's  edition  of  Middle- 
ton;   and,  in  full,  in  Bullen's  edition  of  Middleton,  I,  lxxviii  ff. 


120 

boldness  now  taken  by  that  company,  and  also  that  it  hath  been  per- 
mitted to  be  so  acted,  and  that  the  first  notice  thereof  should  be 
brought  to  him  by  a  foreign  ambassador,  while  so  many  ministers  of 
his  own  are  thereabouts,  and  cannot  but  have  heard  of  it.  His  Maj- 
esty's pleasure  is,  that  your  Lordships  presently  call  before  you  as 
well  the  poet  that  made  the  comedy  as  the  comedians  that  acted  it: 
And  upon  examination  of  them  to  commit  them,  or  such  of  them  as 
you  shall  find  most  faulty,  unto  prison,  if  you  find  cause,  or  otherwise 
take  security  for  their  forthcoming;  and  then  certify  his  Majesty 
what  you  find  that  comedy  to  be,  in  what  points  it  is  most  offensive, 
by  whom  it  was  made,  by  whom  licensed,  and  what  course  you  think 
fittest  to  be  held  for  the  exemplary  and  severe  punishment  of  the  pres- 
ent offenders,  and  to  restrain  such  insolent  and  licentious  presump- 
tion for  the  future."  l 

On  August  21  the  Privy  Council  replied.  They  have  called 
some  of  the  principal  actors  before  them,  they  report,  and 
"demanded  of  them  by  what  license  and  authority  they  have 
presumed  to  act"  the  scandalous  comedy.  "In  answer  whereto 
they  produced  a  book  being  an  original  and  perfect  copy  thereof 
(as  they  affirmed)  seen  and  allowed  by  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  Knt., 
Master  of  the  Revels,  under  his  own  hand,  and  subscribed  in 
the  last  page  of  the  said  book :  We  demanding  further,  whether 
there  were  not  other  parts  or  passages  represented  on  the  stage 
than  those  expressly  contained  in  the  book,  they  confidently 
protested  they  added  or  varied  from  the  same  nothing  at  all." 
The  poet,  one  Middleton,  the  Lords  report,  has  "shifted  out 
of  the  way" ;  but  they  have  sent  a  messenger  to  apprehend  him. 
They  have  sharply  reproved  the  players,  forbidden  them  to  act 
this  comedy  any  more,  or  any  play  whatsoever  until  his  Maj- 
esty's pleasure  be  further  known,  and  made  them  give  bond 
for  their  attendance  upon  the  Council  when  wanted.  Instead 
of  telling  the  King  the  offensive  passages,  they  send  the  book, 
subscribed  by  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  so  that  Conway,  or  some 
one  appointed  by  the  King,  may  peruse  the  play,  and  "  call  Sir 
Henry  Herbert  before  you  to  know  a  reason  of  his  licensing 
thereof,  who  (as  we  are  given  to  understand)  is  now  attending 
at  court."  2 

The  responsibility  of  the  affair  was  now  shifted  to  the  shoul- 

1  Bullen's  Middleton,  I,  lxxviii-lxxix.  3  Ibid.,  lxxix-lxxx. 


121 

ders  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  who  seems  to  have  interceded 
at  once  with  his  kinsman  and  superior  officer,  the  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke, Lord  Chamberlain.  On  August  27  Conway  wrote  again 
to  the  Council,  expressing  the  King's  satisfaction  with  their 
procedure,  and  bidding  them  "examine  by  whose  direction  and 
application  the  personating  of  Gondomar  and  others  was  done ; 
and  that  being  found  out,  the  party  or  parties  to  be  severely 
punished,  his  Majesty  being  unwilling  for  one's  sake  and  only 
fault  to  punish  the  innocent  or  utterly  to  ruin  the  company."  ! 
Pembroke  had  evidently  been  soothing  the  King's  feelings  and 
had  settled  the  affair.  On  the  same  day  he  wrote  to  the  Lord 
President  of  the  Council,  reviewing  the  history  of  the  case,  and 
stating  that  the  players  had  petitioned  the  King  that  they  might 
be  allowed  to  perform  again.  "His  Majesty  now  conceives  the 
punishment,"  writes  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  "if  not  satisfactory 
for  that  their  insolency,  yet  such  as  since  it  stopps  the  current 
of  their  poore  livelyhood  and  maintenance,  without  much  preju- 
dice they  cannot  longer  undergoe.  In  consideration  therefore 
of  those  his  poore  servants,  his  Majesty  would  have  their  Lord- 
ships connive  at  any  common  play  lycensed  by  authority,  that 
they  shall  act  as  before."  But  the  players  are  to  be  "  bound  "  not 
to  repeat  the  Game  at  Chess,  and  the  Lords  are  to  continue  their 
efforts  to  find  out  who  was  originally  responsible  for  the  produc- 
tion of  the  play.2 

As  Middleton  had  "shifted  out  of  the  way,"  his  son  Edward 
was  brought  before  the  Council,  but  released  with  the  injunction 
to  attend  again  whenever  required.3  There  seems  to  be  no  re- 
liable evidence  for  the  story  that  Middleton  himself  was  impris- 
oned because  of  the  play,  and  freed  on  sending  to  the  King  a 
petition  in  humorous  doggerel.4  It  appears,  then,  that  for  this 
grave  indiscretion  the  only  punishment  inflicted  was  the  sup- 
pression of  the  company  for  about  two  weeks.  This  leniency 
is  not  hard  to  understand.  The  players  and  the  poet  were  ab- 
solved from  real  responsibility  by  the  license  of  the  Master  of 
the  Revels,  who  was,  in  his  turn,  protected  from  serious  conse- 
quences by  his  influence  with  the  Lord  Chamberlain.     Moreover, 

1  Bullen's  Middleton,  I,  lxxx-lxxxi.        2  Ibid.,  lxxxi-lxxxii.        3  Ibid.,  l.xxxii. 
*Ibid.,  Ixxxiii;   and  see  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  II,  497. 


122 

the  King's  Spanish  policy  was  now  reversed,  Charles  and  Buck- 
ingham were  in  command,  and  the  all-powerful  "White  Duke" 
must  have  looked  kindly  on  the  play  which  celebrated  the  course 
he  was  now  guiding. 

The  eagerness  with  which  the  public  welcomed  dramatic  repre- 
sentation of  such  vital  current  politics  is  strikingly  evident  in 
the  great  enthusiasm  which  greeted  the  Game  at  Chess.  This 
is  made  vivid  by  a  letter  from  Chamberlain  to  Carleton,  dated 
August  21,  1624,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  "famous  play  of 
Gondomar,  which  hath  been  followed  with  extraordinary  curios- 
ity,  and  frequented  by  all  sorts  of  people,  old  and  young,  rich 
and  poor,  masters  and  servants,  papists,  wise  men,  &c,  church- 
men and  Scotsmen."  1  The  exceptional  applause  which  the 
play  won  was  remembered  as  a  stage  tradition  for  many  years.2 
But  the  authorities  continued  to  frown  upon  it,  and  the  early 
printed  editions  apparently  had  to  be  issued  surreptitiously, 
without  license,  for  they  are  not  entered  in  the  Stationers' 
Register.3 

Perhaps  the  trouble  over  the  Game  at  Chess  made  Herbert 
more  careful.  In  the  following  December  he  evidently  threat- 
ened the  same  company  of  players  with  serious  consequences 
for  having  performed  without  his  license  a  play  called  the  Span- 
ish Viceroy.  Their  humble  submission  on  this  occasion  has 
already  been  quoted.4  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  the 
play  contained  dangerous  political  allusions.  It  has  not  been 
positively  identified,  but  has  been  supposed  to  be  by  Massinger.5 

In  1625  the  Privy  Council  interfered  again  to  guard  the  feel- 
ings of  a  foreign  government.  "The  East  India  Company," 
writes  Locke  to  Carleton,  "have  ordered  Greenbury,  a  painter, 
to  paint  a  detailed  picture  of  all  the  tortures  inflicted  on  the  Eng- 
lish at  Amboyna,  and  would  have  had  it  all  acted  in  a  play,  but 
the  Council  was  appealed  to  by  the  Dutch  ministers,  and  stopped 
it,  for  fear  of  a  disturbance  this  Shrovetide."  6 

A  case  of  trouble  for  the  poet  Massinger  appears  in  Herbert's 

1  Bullen's  Middleton,  I,  Ixxxiv.  2  See  ibid.,  lxxxvi. 

3  See  Fleay,  London  Stage,  256.  *  See  above,  p.  77. 

•See  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  III,  8-9. 
8  State  Papers,  Dom.,  Add.,  1623-1625,  48. 


123 

Office  Book  on  January  n,  163 1,  when  the  Master  noted  that 
ho  had  refused  to  license  a  play  by  that  dramatist  because  "it 
did  contain  dangerous  matter,  as  the  deposing  of  Sebastian,  king 
of  Portugal,  by  Philip,  there  being  a  peace  sworn  'twixt  the  Kings 
of  England  and  Spain."  l  Massingcr  thereupon  thoroughly 
revised  the  play,  duly  removing  the  most  "dangerous  matter  " 
and  altering  names  and  scenes.  He  then  submitted  it  again 
to  Herbert.  This  time  the  Master  licensed  it  without  question, 
and  it  appeared  under  the  title  Believe  As  You  List,  with  an 
apology  in  its  prologue  for  coming  "too  near  a  late  and  sad 
example."  This  second  draft  which  Massinger  submitted  to 
the  Revels  Office  still  survives  in  his  autograph  manuscript, 
showing  Herbert's  license.2  In  several  places  the  author  at 
first  inadvertently  wrote  the  original  names,  and  then  corrected 
them.  "Sebastian"  appears  twice,  "Carthage"  is  written  over 
"Venice,"  and  there  are  other  similar  slips.  To  what  extent 
the  original  play  was  altered  in  other  respects  it  is  impossible 
to  say,  as,  except  in  a  few  instances  like  these,  the  process  of 
revision  was  completed  before  the  author  made  his  fair  copy 
for  the  licenser.3 

Gardiner's  paper  on  the  Political  Elements  in  Massinger* 
points  out  in  Believe  As  You  List  a  striking  analogy  to  Charles' 
attitude  at  this1  date  towards  his  brother-in-law  Frederick, 
Elector  Palatine  and  titular  King  of  Bohemia.  In  this  play, 
as  well  as  in  several  others,  Gardiner  thinks  that  Massinger 
was  representing,  under  a  thin  disguise,  current  political  events ; 
and  portraying  them  from  the  standpoint  of  the  faction  to 
which  belonged  his  patrons  the  Herberts,  Earls  of  Pembroke 
and  Montgomery.  In  the  Bondman,  for  example,  in  the  char- 
acter of  Gisco  he  satirized  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  then  op- 
posed by  Pembroke ;  but  in  the  Great  Duke  of  Florence,  some 
four  years  later,  he  exhibited  towards  the  favorite  the  new  and 

1  1821  Variorum,  III,  229-231. 

2  The  license  is  reproduced  in  facsimile  in  the  edition  of  the  play  in  the 
Percy  Society  Publications,  XXVII,  105. 

3  See  An  Autograph  Play  of  Philip  Massingcr,  in  the  Athenaum,  January  19, 
1901.     The  MS.  is  now  in  the  British  Museum. 

*  New  Shakspcre  Society  Transactions,  1876;  reprinted  from  Contemporary 
Review,  August,  1876. 


124 

friendly  attitude  now  felt  by  the  brothers  Herbert.  The  Maid 
of  Honor,  again,  according  to  Gardiner,  shows  a  striking  sim- 
ilarity to  the  policy  followed  by  Charles  and  James  towards  the 
Elector  Frederick. 

The  analogies  which  Gardiner  points  out  are  interesting  and 
often  plausible.  It  is  possible  that  Massinger  was  indeed  putting 
into  the  plays  this  political  significance;  and  if  he  was  doing 
it  in  support  of  the  faction  favored  by  Pembroke,  that  nobleman, 
as  Lord  Chamberlain,  perhaps  protected  him  from  trouble  with 
the  censor.  At  all  events,  the  allusions  seem  to  have  been 
sufficiently  veiled  to  avoid  stirring  up  much  public  notice  or  the 
wrath  of  the  King. 

In  1632,  the  year  following  Believe  As  You  List,  Herbert  noted 
in  his  Register  his  displeasure  at  Shirley  and  Chapman's  The 
Ball.  The  offense  in  this  case  was  the  manner  in  which  "divers 
lords  and  others  of  the  Court"  were  represented.  On  receiving 
promises  of  omissions,  however,  and  of  not  "suffering  it  to  be 
done  by  the  poet  any  more,"  Herbert  allowed  the  play.1  In 
the  next  year,  1633,  there  appears  to  have  been  a  veritable 
epidemic  of  offensive  language  among  the  playwrights.  In 
May,  1633,  Inigo  Jones  complained  of  his  being  represented  in 
the  character  of  Vitruvius  Hoop,  in  Jonson's  Tale  of  a  Tub,  "as 
a  personal  injury  unto  him";  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain  com- 
manded Herbert  to  allow  the  play  only  on  condition  that  Vitru- 
vius Hoop's  part  and  "the  motion  of  the  Tub"  be  "wholly 
struck  out."  2  In  June,  in  allowing  the  Seaman's  Honest  Wife, 
Sir  Henry  was  so  offended  by  its  numerous  oaths  that  he  ap- 
pended to  his  license  the  following  note :  "  I  command  your 
Bookeeper  to  present  mee  with  a  faire  Copy  hercaft.  and  to 
leave  out  all  oathes,  prophancss  &  publick  Ribaldry  as  he  will 
answer  it  at  his  perill.     H.  Herbert."  3 

The  trouble  with  Fletcher's  Woman's  Prize,  or  The  Tamer 
Tamed,  followed  in  October,  and  resulted,  as  we  have  seen,  in 
Herbert's  closer  supervision  of  revived  plays.4     On  complaint 

1  1821  Variorum,  III,  231-232.  On  the  altered  passages,  see  Fleay,  English 
Drama,  II,  239. 

1  1S21  Variorum,  III,  232.  '  Bullen,  Old  Plays,  II,  432. 

*  See  above,  p.  82. 


125 

of  the  "foul  and  offensive  matters"  which  it  contained,  the  Mas- 
ter suppressed  the  play  and  sent  for  the  book,  which  he  returned 
to  the  company  three  days  later,  "  purgd  of  oaths,  prophaness, 
and  ribald  rye,"  and  with  the  following  note  "subscribed  and 
directed  to  Knight,  their  book-keeper,"  who  had  evidently 
already  tried  his  hand  at  expurgating  it. 

•Mr.  Knight, 

"In  many  things  you  have  saved  mee  labour;  yet  wher  your  judg- 
ment or  penn  fayld  you,  I  have  made  boulde  to  use  mine.  Purge 
ther  parts,  as  I  have  the  booke.  And  I  hope  every  hearer  and  player 
will  thinke  that  I  have  done  God  good  servisc,  and  the  quality  no 
wronge ;  who  hath  no  greater  enemies  than  oaths,  prophaness,  and 
publique  ribaldry,  \vhch  for  the  future  I  doe  absolutely  forbid  to  bee 
presented  unto  mee  in  any  playbooke,  as  you  will  answer  it  at  your 
perill.     21  Octob.  1633." 

The  incident  was  closed  three  days  later,  when,  as  Herbert 
tells  us,  the  players  apologized.  "Lowins  and  Swanston  were 
sorry  for  their  ill  manners,  and  craved  my  pardon,  which  I  gave 
them  in  presence  of  Mr.  Taylor  and  Mr.  Benfeilde."  1 

Though  the  publisher  of  the  Fletcher  Folio  asserts  that  the 
text  is  restored  to  its  original  form,  we  may  not  have  the  Tamer 
Tamed  in  its  full  and  "offensive"  state,  and  can  therefore  not 
determine  just  what  passages  were  complained  of.  Herbert's 
comments  would  indicate  that  the  offense  was  chiefly  profanity. 
There  seems  to  be  no  foundation  for  the  statement  that  the  fault 
consisted  in  the  attacks  on  the  Puritans.  Weber,  in  his  edition 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,2  asserts  that  the  persons  who  com- 
plained were  probably  Puritans,  and  "the  passages  reprobated 
.  .  .  were  probably  those  levelled  at  the  sect,  which  seems  to 
have  stood  high  in  the  favor  of  Sir  Henry."  This  is  highly  un- 
likely. Certainly  Herbert,  chief  fosterer  of  the  stage  and  de- 
pendent upon  it  for  his  income,  and  in  sentiment  "  more  royalist 
than  the  King,"  would  have  been  the  last  person  to  sympathize 
with  the  Puritans.  And  the  year  during  which  the  Puritan 
Prynne,  for  his  attack  on  the  drama,  was  lying  in  prison,  pre- 

1  See  Herbert's  full  account  of  the  affair  in  1821  Variorum,  III,  208-210. 
1  V,  254. 


126 

paratory  to  his  further  punishment  on  the  pillory,  was  an  un- 
likely time  for  the  exhibition  of  much  consideration  towards 
that  sect.  The  passages  in  the  Tamer  Tamed  to  which  Weber 
alludes  l  are  rather  mild  and  commonplace  hits  at  the  Puritan 
opposition  to  May-poles,  morris-dances,  and  players.  As  for 
the  scene  in  which,  according  to  Weber,  "Fletcher  seems  to 
have  thrown  the  glove  of  defiance  before  these  pious  foes,  by 
introducing  the  most  disgusting  obscenity,"  2  I  fear  that  the  poet 
did  not  need  the  added  inducement  of  this  opposition  to  egg  him 
on.  Certainly  the  play  is  indecent  enough,  and  some  of  its 
offenses  in  this  respect  may  perhaps  have  shocked  even  Sir 
Henry  Herbert.  Apparently  the  Tamer  Tamed  did  not  suffer 
from  this  temporary  cloud.  About  a  month  later  it  was  acted 
at  Court,  and,  Herbert  tells  us,  "very  well  likt."  3 

In  the  same  busy  month  —  October,  1633  — two  other 
troubles  confronted  the  Master.  The  High  Commission  Court 
had  apparently  interfered  in  the  case  of  Jonson's  Magnetic 
Lady,  on  account  of  some  offensive  interpolations,  mostly  oaths, 
made  by  the  actors.  The  players,  in  their  first  petition  to  the 
Court,  laid  the  blame  on  the  Master  and  on  the  author;  but  in 
their  second  petition  "they  did  mcc  right,"  notes  Herbert,  "in 
my  care  to  purge  their  plays  of  all  offense."  Whereupon  "my 
lords  Grace  of  Canterbury  bestowed  many  words  upon  mee,  and 
discharged  me  of  any  blame,  and  layd  the  whole  fault  of  their 
play  called  The  Magnctick  Lady,  upon  the  players."  4  Offen- 
sive personalities,  as  well  as  oaths,  the  actors  seem  to  have  been 
making  use  of;  for  in  this  same  October,  the  Master  tells  us, 
"Exception  was  taken  by  Mr.  Scwster  to  the  second  part  of 
The  Citty  Shuffler,  which  gave  me  occasion  to  stay  the  play,  till 
the  company  had  given  him  satisfaction;  which  was  done  the 
next  day,  and  under  his  hand  he  did  certifye  mee  that  he  was 
satisfyed."  5  It  would  seem  that  Mr.  Sewster  had  been  offen- 
sively satirized  in  this  production. 

One  bright  spot  cheered  Herbert  in  this  year  of  struggling 

1  Act  II,  Scene  v;   Act  III,  Scene  ii.     Weber's  edition,  312,  330. 

2  Ibid.,  330,  note.  3  1S21  Variorum,  III,  234. 

*  Ibid.,  233.     And  sec  Fleay,  English  Drama,  I,  385-386. 
1 1S21  Variorum,  III,  172,  note. 


127 

against  "oaths  and  ribaldry."  In  July,  1633,  Shirley's  Young 
Admiral  aroused  his  warm  approval,  and  caused  him  to  enter 
in  his  Register  this  patronizing  eulogy:  — 

"The  comedy  called  The  Yonge  Admirall,  being  free  from  oaths, 
prophancness,  or  obsceanes,  hath  given  mee  much  delight  and  satis- 
faction in  the  readinge,  and  may  serve  for  a  patterne  to  other  poetts, 
not  only  for  the  bettring  of  maners  and  language,  but  for  the  improve- 
ment of  the  quality,  which  hath  received  some  brushings  of  late. 
When  Mr.  Sherley  hath  read  this  approbation,  I  know  it  will  encour- 
age him  to  pursue  this  beneficial  and  cleanly  way  of  poetry,  and  when 
other  poetts  heare  and  see  his  good  success,  I  am  confident  they  will 
imitate  the  original  for  their  own  credit,  and  make  such  copies  in 
this  harmless  way,  as  shall  speak  them  masters  in  their  art,  at  the  first 
sight,  to  all  judicious  spectators.  It  may  be  acted  this  3  July,  1633. 
I  have  entered  this  allowance  for  direction  to  my  successor,  and  for 
example  to  all  poetts,  that  shall  write  after  the  date  hereof."  l 

Any  one  who  would  see  Herbert's  ideal  of  dramatic  writing 
has  therefore  but  to  read  the  Young  Admiral.  It  is  indeed  far 
more  "cleanly"  than  many  dramas  of  the  period,  but  various 
passages  in  it  give  us  added  proof  that  Herbert's  concern  was 
more  with  the  abhorred  oaths  than  with  modern  notions  of 
decency. 

Herbert's  reputation  as  a  puritanical  person,  "pious"  and 
"delicate,"  rests  chiefly  on  the  affair  of  D'Avenant's  Wits. 
Though  the  inference  usually  drawn  from  his  account  of  this 
seems  to  me  hardly  justified,  the  story  does  certainly  reveal  him 
in  an  amusingly  pedantic  light.  The  Master,  it  appears,  had 
"reformed"  this  play  so  rigorously  that  the  ire  of  the  author  was 
aroused.  The  exasperated  D'Avenant  secured  the  aid  of  En- 
dymion  Porter,  to  whom  he  afterwards  dedicated  the  comedy. 
At  the  intercession  of  this  gentleman,  the  King  himself  consented 
to  intervene,  and  actually  went  over  the  play-book  with  Herbert, 
to  moderate  his  censorial  zeal,  and  restore  some  of  the  expur- 
gated words.     The  Master's  record  of  the  affair  shows  a  comical 

1  1S21  Variorum,  III,  232.  At  this  period  Shirley  seems  to  have  been  in  close 
and  friendly  relations  with  the  Master  and  even  with  the  King.  In  this  same  year 
Charles  suggested  to  the  dramatist,  through  Herbert,  the  plot  for  his  Gamester,  — 
which  his  Majesty  afterwards  naturally  thought  "the  best  play  he  had  seen  for 
seven  years."     See  ibid.,  236. 


128 

mixture  of  his  respect  for  the  royal  judgment  and  his  obstinate 
persistence  in  his  own  views.  "The  king  is  pleased  to  take 
faith,  death,  'slight  for  asseverations  and  no  oaths,  to  which  I 
do  humbly  submit  as  my  master's  judgment;  but  under  favour 
conceive  them  to  be  oaths,  and  enter  them  here  to  declare  my 
opinion  and  submission."  King  Charles'  tactful  consideration 
for  the  feelings  of  his  Master  of  the  Revels  is  apparent  from  the 
latter's  statement  that  "the  kinge  would  not  take  the  booke  at 
Mr.  Porters  hands;  but  commanded  him  to  bring  it  to  mee, 
which  he  did,  and  likewise  commanded  Davenant  to  come  to 
me  for  it,  as  I  believe;  othenvise  he  would  not  have  byn  so 
civill."1  The  tone  of  the  Wits  is,  to  the  modern  taste,  consist- 
ently indecent  throughout,  and  one  situation  is,  as  Mr.  Ward 
puts  it,  "of  a  breadth  which  would  have  suited  the  most  frolic 
pages  of  Boccaccio";  but  these  things  naturally  did  not  con- 
cern Herbert,  intent  on  his  search  for  profanity. 

The  Master's  condemnation  of  oaths  extended  over  printed 
plays  as  well  as  stage  presentations.  It  is  worth  while  to  glance 
at  his  activity  in  this  line  during  these  years.  Since  the  passage 
of  the  statute  of  1606  such  expurgation  had  been  attended  to 
with  more  or  less  rigor.  Later  editions  of  plays  originally  printed 
before  the  statute,  frequently  show  reformations  of  this  sort. 
The  Jonson  Folio  of  1616,  for  example,  exhibits  such  substitu- 
tions as  "Believe  me"  for  "By  Jesu."  Later  reissues  of  plays 
often  show  still  more  rigorous  emendations.  Herbert's  energy 
in  eliminating  oaths  seems,  during  part  of  his  administration 
at  least,  to  have  been  applied  vigorously  to  the  press.  Inter- 
esting examples  of  his  very  fussy  alterations  in  this  line  may 
,be  seen  in  the  fourth  quarto  of  Philaster,2  published  in  1634, 
1  the  same  year  in  which  the  Master  tried  to  be  so  severe  with  the 
profanity  in  D'Avenant's  Wits.  In  Philaster,  too,  "Faith" 
is  cut  out,  or  changed  to  such  words  as  "Marry"  or  "Indeed." 
"By  Heaven"  is  altered  to  " By  these  hilts."  Even  the  heathen 
gods  were  not  to  be  invoked  without  caution.  "By  the  gods" 
is  frequently  displaced  by  "And  I  vow/'  "By  my  sword,"  "By 

1  1S21  Variorum,  III,  235. 

J  The  first  edition  of  Philaster,  in  1620,  was  not  licensed  by  the  Revels  Office. 
(Arber,  Transcript,  III,  662.) 


129 

my  life,"  "  By  all  that's  good."  Instead  of  "By  the  just  gods," 
the  poet  is  allowed  to  asseverate  "  By  Nemesis."  *  If  the  Revels 
Office  attended  thus  minutely  to  the  new  editions  of  many  plays, 
the  Master  and  his  Deputy  must  indeed  have  been  kept  busy. 

To  return  to  cases  of  dramatic  performance,  —  the  Queen's 
company  seems  to  have  been  in  trouble  in  1637.  The  Prologue 
of  Brome's  English  Moor,  produced  by  them  in  that  year,  in- 
forms us  that  the  actors  had  been  "restrained"  for  a  time,  but 
does  not  tell  us  the  cause  of  their  punishment.  The  players 
promise,  in  the  Prologue,  that  they  will  submit  to  the  "high 
powers,"  and  will  "utter  nothing  may  be  understood  offensive 
to  the  state,  manners  or  time."  2  We  know  nothing  further 
about  the  case.  Presumably  the  company  had  presented  some 
play  containing  indiscreet  allusions  to  affairs  of  state. 

A  case  of  a  different  sort  arose  in  June,  1638.  There  had 
been  some  difficulty  about  the  licensing  of  Massinger's  King 
and  Subject,  which  had  been  finally  laid  before  the  King  himself 
for  his  opinion.  After  expurgating  some  apparently  seditious 
lines,  Charles  bade  the  Master  allow  the  play.  Herbert's  account 
of  the  matter  is  amusingly  characteristic. 

"At  Greenwich  the  4  of  June,  Mr.  W.  Murray  gave  mee  power 
from  the  king  to  allowe  of  the  play,  and  tould  me  that  he  would 
warrant  it. 

"'Monys?     Wee'le  rayse  supplies  what  ways  we  please, 
And  force  you  to  subscribe  to  blanks,  in  which 
We'le  mulct  you  as  wee  shall  thinke  fitt.     The  Caesars 
In  Rome  were  wise,  acknowledginge  no  lawes 
But  what  their  swords  did  ratifye,  the  wives 
And  daughters  of  the  senators  bowinge  to 
Their  wills,  as  deities,'  &c. 

This  is  a  peece  taken  out  of  Philip  Messinger's  play  called  The  King 
and  the  Subject,  and  entered  here  for  ever  to  bee  remembered  by 
my  son  and  those  that  cast  their  eyes  on  it,  in  honour  of  Kinge  Charles, 

1  All  such  alterations  are  registered  in  the  foot-notes  in  the  Variorum  Edition 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  I.  A  multitude  of  such  examples  could  doubtless  be 
collected  from  the  books  of  the  time. 

2  Brome,  Works,  II,  1. 

K 


130 

my  master,  who,  readinge  over  the  play  at  Newmarket,  set  his  marke 
upon  the  place  with  his  owne  hande,  and  in  thes  words: 

"'This  is  too  insolent,  and  to  bee  changed.' 

"Note,  that  the  poett  makes  it  the  speech  of  a  king,  Don  Pedro 
king  of  Spayne,  and  spoken  to  his  subjects."  ' 

Certainly  the  passage  on  the  raising  of  supplies  was  indiscreet, 
in  view  of  the  bitter  trouble  between  King  and  Parliament. 
It  is  striking  to  find  that  it  is  by  the  same  hand  which  probably 
penned  the  one  notable  protest  against  despotic  government 
which  we  have  encountered,  —  the  closing  speech  of  Barnevelt 
at  his  trial.2 

The  care  still  taken  to  suppress  any  disrespect  shown  to  re- 
ligion is  illustrated  in  the  following  year,  1639,  when,  according 
to  a  letter,  the  players  of  the  Fortune  were  fined  a  thousand 
pounds  —  one  may  doubt  the  sum  —  for  setting  up  on  the  stage 
an  altar,  a  basin,  and  two  candlesticks,  and  bowing  down  to 
them.  The  actors  alleged  that  it  was  an  old  play  revived,  and 
the  altar  merely  one  to  the  heathen  gods;  but  the  authorities 
decided  that  the  performance  was  in  contempt  of  the  ceremonies 
of  the  church.3 

In  the  same  year  the  Aldermen  of  London  and  the  profession 
of  proctors  were  also  in  need  of  protection  against  the  stage. 
A  complaint  was  made  in  September,  we  learn,  to  the  King  in 
Council,  "that  the  stage-players  of  the  Red  Bull  have  lately, 
for  many  days  together,  acted  a  scandalous  and  libellous  play, 
wherein  they  have  audaciously  reproached,  and  in  a  libellous 
manner  traduced  and  personated,  not  only  some  of  the  Al- 
dermen of  the  City  of  London  and  other  persons  of  quality,  but 
also  scandalized  and  defamed  the  whole  profession  of  Proc- 
tors belonging  to  the  Court  of  Probate,  and  reflected  upon  the 
present  Government."  The  Council  ordered  that  the  Attorney- 
General  should  call  before  him  "not  only  the  poet  who  made 
the  said  play,  and  the  actors  that  played  the  same,  but  also  the 

1 1821  Variorum,  III,  240.  Herbert  tells  us  that  the  name  of  the  play  was 
changed.     It  does  not  seem  to  have  survived. 

2  See  above,   p.  117.  3  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1639,  140-141. 


131 

person  who  licensed  it";  and  that,  having  ascertained  the  truth 
of  the  complaint,  he  should  proceed  "roundly"  and  expedi- 
tiously against  the  offenders,  in  order,  that  their  "exemplary 
punishment  may  prevent  such  insolence  betimes."  '  The  name 
of  this  production  was  the  Whore  New  Vamped.  Another 
document  informs  us  of  its  objectionable  passages:  the 
dubbing  of  all  proctors  "arrant  knaves,"  and  the  even  more 
shocking  assertion,  "The  alderman  is  a  base,  drunken  sottish 
knave,  I  care  not  for  the  alderman;  I  say  the  alderman  is  a 
base,  drunken,  sottish  knave  !"  2 

As  the  storm  of  the  Civil  War  draws  near,  it  is  most  fitting 
that  the  last  important  case  we  have  to  chronicle  should  be  one  \ 
of  disrespect  to  the  King  and  defiance  of  the  authority  of  his  ^ 
servant,  the  Master  of  the  Revels.  The  offenders  were  William 
Beeston's  company  at  the  Cockpit  theater,  sometimes  known  as 
the  "King's  and  Queen's  young  company."  We  learn  of  the 
affair  from  Herbert's  Register  and  from  the  following  order 
issued  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain  on  May  3,  1640. 

"Whereas  Wm.  Bieston  and  the  company  of  players  of  the  Cock- 
pit in  Drury  Lane  have  lately  acted  a  new  play  without  any  license 
from  the  Master  of  his  Majesty's  Revells,  and  being  commanded  to 
forbear  playing  or  acting  of  the  same  play  by  the  said  Master  of  the 
Revells,  and  commanded  likewise  to  forbear  all  manner  of  playing, 
have  notwithstanding  in  contempt  of  the  authority  of  the  said  Master 
of  the  Revells  and  the  power  granted  unto  him  under  the  great  seal 
of  England,  acted  the  said  play  and  others  to  the  prejudice  of  his 
Majesty's  service  and  in  contempt  of  the  office  of  the  Revells,  whereby 
he,  they,  and  all  other  companies  ever  have  been  and  ought  to  be 
governed  and  regulated:  These  are  therefore  in  his  Majesty's  name 
and  signification  of  his  royal  pleasure  to  command  the  said  Wm. 
Bieston  and  the  rest  of  that  company  of  the  Cockpit  players,  from 
henceforth  and  upon  sight  hereof  to  forbear  to  act  any  plays  what- 
soever until  they  shall  be  restored  by  the  said  Master  of  the  Revells 
unto  their  former  liberty."  3 

Herbert  informs  us  that  on  the  following  day  Beeston  was 
committed  to  the  Marshalsea,  and  that  for  three  days  the  com- 

1  Stale  Papers,  Dom.,  1639,  529. 

2  Ibid.,  530-531;   Chalmers,  Apology,  504-505,  note. 

3  Chalmers,  Apology,  517,  note. 


132 

pany  "laye  still."  But  on  the  fourth,  "at  my  Lord  Chamber- 
len's  entreaty,"  and  "upon  their  petition  of  submission  sub- 
scribed by  the  players,"  Herbert  restored  to  them  their  liberty 
of  playing.  "The  play  I  cald  for,"  he  notes,  "and,  forbiddinge 
the  playinge  of  it,  keepe  the  booke,  because  it  had  relation  to  the 
passages  of  the  K.'s  journey  into  the  Xorthe,  and  was  complaynd 
of  by  his  M.tye  to  mee,  with  commande  to  punishe  the  offenders." x 
As  a  result  of  this  trouble,  Beeston  was  removed  from  the  manage- 
ment of  the  "King's  and  Queen's  young  company,"  and  D'Ave- 
nant  appointed  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain  to  take  charge  of  it.2 
The  reckless  insubordination  of  a  royal  company  on  this  occa- 
sion is  hard  to  understand.  Their  reflections  upon  the  "King's 
journey  into  the  North,"  cannot,  however,  have  been  danger- 
ously disrespectful,  or  they  would  have  been  more  severely 
punished. 

The  catastrophe  now  approached  to  which  the  loyal  Master 
of  the  Revels  in  after  years  referred  as  "the  Late  Horrid  Re- 
bellion, when  sir  Henry  Herbert  owned  not  their  uniust  and 
Tyranicall  Authority."  3  His  task  was  over,  and  in  the  Office 
Book  which  had  chronicled  so  many  famous  dramas  he  made  his 
last  entry,  —  "  Here  ended  my  allowance  of  plaies,  for  the  war 
began  in  August,  1642."  4 

That  industrious  and  practical  playwright,  Thomas  Hey- 
wood,  evidently  understood  very  well  the  nature  of  the  censorship 
which  we  have  been  following.  In  his  Apology  for  Actors, 
written  in  161 2,  he  thus  sums  up  the  errors  against  which  the 
dramatists  must  be  especially  on  their  guard.  "  Now,  to  speakc 
of  some  abuse  lately  crept  into  the  quality,  as  an  inveighing 
against  the  state,  the  court,  the  law,  the  citty,  and  their  governe- 
ments,  with  the  particularizing  of  private  men's  humors  (yet 
alive),  noble-men  and  others :  I  know  it  distastes  many;  neither 
do  I  in  any  way  approve  it,  nor  dare  I  by  any  meanes  excuse  it."  5 
Other   dramatists,  also,  show   evidences  of   guarding  against 

1  1821  Variorum,  III,  241. 

3  See  the  warrant  appointing  D'Avenant,  printed  in  Chalmers,  Apology,  519, 
note. 

3  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  33.  *  1S21  Variorum,  III,  242. 

1  Printed  in  the  Shakspere  Society  Publications,  III,  61. 


133 

such  accusations  as  these.  The  prologues  and  epilogues  of  the 
period  contain  many  protestations  that  the  author  is  not  in- 
veighing against  the  state  or  any  other  institution,  and  is  not 
attacking  or  satirizing  any  individual  persons.  The  poets  even 
protest  at  times  that  they  have  avoided  indecency  and  immoral- 
ity. Fear  of  the  presence  of  spies  who  might  misinterpret 
their  lines  and  involve  playwright  and  players  in  trouble  with 
the  authorities  also  seems  to  disturb  them  occasionally.  The 
most  striking  and  amusing  expression  of  these  ideas  is  in  the 
Induction  of  Jonson's  Bartholomew  Fair,  which  ridicules  such 
interpretations  of  a  play  as  the  City  had  made  in  the  case  of 
the  Hog  hath  Lost  his  Pearl  in  the  preceding  year,1  and  satirizes 
the  official  condemnation  of  profanity.  "It  is  agreed  by  the 
aforesaid  hearers  and  spectators,  That  they  neither  in  them- 
selves conceal,  nor  suffer  by  them  to  be  concealed,  any  state- 
decypherer,  or  politic  picklock  of  the  scene,  so  solemnly  ridicu- 
lous as  to  search  out  who  was  meant  by  the  gingerbread -woman, 
who  by  the  hobby-horse  man,  who  by  the  costardmonger,  nay, 
who  by  their  wares.  Or  that  will  pretend  to  affirm  on  his  own 
inspired  ignorance,  what  Mirror  of  Magistrates  is  meant  by  the 
justice,  what  great  lady  by  the  pig-woman,  what  concealed 
statesman  by  the  seller  of  mousetraps,  and  so  of  the  rest.  But 
that  such  person,  or  persons,  so  found,  be  left  discovered  to  the 
mercy  of  the  author,  as  a  forfeiture  to  the  stage,  and  your 
laughter  aforesaid.  As  also  such  as  shall  so  desperately,  or 
ambitiously  play  the  fool  by  his  place  aforesaid,  to  challenge  the 
author  of  scurrility,  because  the  language  somewhere  savours 
of  Smithfield,  the  booth,  and  the  pigbroth,  or  of  profaneness, 
because  a  madman  cries,  God  quit  you,  or  bless  you."  Other 
writers  appear  at  times  to  take  the  matter  more  seriously,  and 
to  be  really  in  fear  of  condemnation  for  sedition  or  slander.2 

These  were  indeed  the  faults  which  brought  down  the  wrath 
of  the  censor.  On  the  whole  there  was,  throughout  the  period, 
a  fairly  rigorous  suppression  of  anything  touching  on  current 

1  See  above,  p.  112. 

2  See,  for  example,  the  Preface  to  Marston's  Malcontent,  the  Prologues  to 
Beaumont's  Woman-Hater  and  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  and  the  Prologue 
to  Taylor's  Hog  hath  Lost  his  Pearl. 


134 

political  and  religious  questions,  and  a  frequent  effort  to  sup- 
press offensive  personalities.  The  nature  of  the  whole  Eliza- 
bethan drama  is  sufficient  evidence  that  the  censor  was  not 
concerned  with  decency  and  morality  in  our  modern  sense.  It 
would,  of  course,  be  absurd  to  expect  him  to  have  been.  In 
summing  up  such  a  survey  of  the  censorship,  one  should  also  be 
careful  to  bear  in  mind  that  it  was  probably  enforced  no  more 
regularly  and  consistently  than  the  laws  which  we  have  investi- 
gated in  an  earlier  chapter.  Doubtless  many  plays,  especially 
before  Herbert's  day,  went  quite  uncensored  and  unlicensed. 
And  we  ought  never  to  be  surprised  if  we  find  passages  permitted 
which  seem  far  more  flagrant  than  some  that  brought  clown 
rebuke  upon  players  and  poets.  In  Buc's  expurgations  of  the 
Second  Maiden's  Tragedy,  for  example,  we  saw  rather  rigorous 
suppression  of  disrespectful  allusions  to  the  wicked  Tyrant. 
But  the  drama  of  the  period  abounds  in  apparently  unrepressed 
portrayals  of  weak  and  vicious  kings  who  meet  avenging  death, 
and  of  intriguing  and  pernicious  favorites.  The  Maid's  Tragedy, 
supposed  to  have  seemed  offensive  to  Charles  II  in  later  years, 
apparently  aroused  no  protest  in  the  early  Stuart  period.  Such 
examples  as  these  show  the  real  freedom  allowed  in  many  cases 
to  the  dramatists  of  this  time. 

The  punishment  of  erring  actors  was  on  the  whole  extremely 
lenient.  We  have  encountered  scarcely  a  case  of  real  severity. 
When  we  consider  the  customs  of  the  time,  and  compare  the 
dire  penalties  meted  out  to  some  offending  Puritans  —  John 
Stubbes'  loss  of  his  right  hand,  Prynne's  mutilation  and  suffer- 
ing in  the  pillory  —  it  is  evident  how  effectively  the  protection 
of  their  patrons  and  the  favor  of  the  Court  sheltered  the  players 
and  the  playwrights. 

It  is  always  dangerous  to  speculate  on  how  things  would  have 
turned  out  if  conditions  had  been  quite  different  from  what  they 
were.  But  the  problem  of  the  effect  of  the  censorship  on  the 
drama  of  the  period  is  too  interesting  to  avoid.  What  would  the 
Elizabethan  drama  have  been,  had  it  been  free  from  this  super- 
vision? Not  materially  different,  I  imagine,  from  what  it  was. 
The  dramatists  would  no  doubt  have  been  spared  much  annoy- 
ance, for  it  must  have  been  peculiarly  exasperating  to  them  to 


135 

have  their  verses  spoiled  by  such  "reformations"  as  we  have  / 
seen;  but  the  general  content  and  spirit  of  their  plays  would 
probably  have  been  much  the  same.  They  would  undoubtedly 
haw  indulged  in  much  more  personal  satire  and  scurrilous 
abuse  of  living  individuals,  —  a  loss  to  which  we  can  easily 
reconcile  ourselves,  as  we  can  to  the  expurgated  oaths.  They 
would  doubtless  have  written  more  plays  treating  current  poli- 
ties, and  especially  foreign  relations  and  affairs.  The  great 
popular  approval  which  greeted  the  Game  at  Chess,  shows  how 
eager  the  public  was  for  representations  of  really  vital  events 
such  as  these;  and  the  case  of  Massinger  also  indicates  the 
willingness  of  some  playwrights  to  deal  with  these  themes.  But 
even  when  the  drama  did  touch  politics,  it  was  rather,  especially 
under  the  Stuarts,  the  mere  expression  of  the  views  of  one  fac- 
tion of  the  Court  party,  as  in  Massinger's  case,  than  any  dis-  . 
cussion  of  the  great  political  and  religious  questions  which  were  .• 

stirring  so  profoundly  the  heart  of  the  nation.  This  was  not 
due  to  the  censorship.  Nearly  all  those  seriously  concerned 
for  civil  liberty  and  religious  reform  were  comprised  in  the  party 
loosely  called  Puritan,  and  to  them  the  stage  was  anathema. 
Under  no  circumstances  could  it  have  served  as  a  voice  for  their 
views  and  aspirations.  The  dramatists  were  the  spokesmen 
of  the  party  then  dominant,  —  Court,  Royalist,  Cavalier,  — 
almost  completely  out  of  touch  and  sympathy  with  the  great 
movements  which  were  so  soon  to  triumph. 

The  Elizabethan  drama  was,  indeed,  essentially  non-con- 
troversial. It  was  chiefly  romantic,  concerned  not  with  how 
things  ought  to  be,  but  with  how  they  might  appear  most  splen- 
did, most  thrilling,  most  effective.  Or  when  it  assumed  a  realis- 
tic attitude,  it  dealt  rather  with  the  analysis  of  human  character, 
of  the  foibles  of  human  nature,  than  with  political  and  social 
problems.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  for 
instance,  using  the  stage  as  a  weapon  in  religious  or  political 
controversy ;  or,  to  take  the  most  illustrious  case  of  all,  to  think 
of  Shakspere  as  having  been  restrained  by  the  censorship  from 
entering  the  controversial  arena.  Obviously  in  sympathy  with 
the  government  and  the  customs  prevailing  in  his  time,  the  great 
poet  seems  to  have  looked  with  some  contempt  upon  the  popu- 


136 

lace  and  their  desire  for  civic  rights.  But  on  the  whole  such 
political  questions  interested  him  little,  —  and  religion  appar- 
ently scarcely  at  all.  The  persons  with  whom  he  associated,  the 
audiences  for  whom  he  wrote,  the  patrons  who  assisted  him, 
had  no  real  concern  with  these  ideas  which  were  about  to  revolu- 
tionize the  nation.  Nor  can  we  imagine  him,  dispassionate 
though  sympathetic  observer  and  portrayer  of  human  nature  as 
he  was,  —  so  dispassionate  that  we  can  scarcely  guess  his  views 
on  any  of  the  great  questions  of  society,  —  we  cannot  imagine 
such  a  man  ever  becoming  under  any  circumstances  the  mere 
mouthpiece  of  a  political  or  religious  party,  ever  desiring  to  use 
his  art  for  a  controversial  purpose.  These  things  were  not  his 
concern.  When  the  manuscripts  of  his  plays  were  submitted 
to  the  Revels  Office,  the  pen  of  Tilney  or  of  Buc,  we  may  feel 
sure,  marred  with  no  considerable  "reformations"  his  unblotted 
lines ;  nor  would  his  dramas  have  been  materially  different  from 
what  they  are,  had  there  been  no  necessity  of  guarding  against 
the  condemnation  of  the  censor. 


CHAPTER  IV 

Local  Regulations  in  London,  i 543-1 592 

It  is  now  necessary  for  us  to  retrace  our  steps  chronologically, 
and  to  follow  the  history  of  conditions  in  London,  of  the  orders 
and  ordinances  applying  particularly  to  the  stage  in  and  about 
that  city.  Before  one  can  clearly  understand  the  course  of  these 
local  regulations,  and  especially  the  disputes  between  the  City 
and  the  royal  government  concerning  plays,  it  is  essential  to 
consider  briefly  the  constitution  of  the  municipal  government  and 
the  topographical  limits  of  its  jurisdiction.  This  is  an  interest- 
ing and  complex  subject,  full  of  contradictions,  anomalies,  and 
uncertainties.  Strange  relics  of  medieval  customs,  precincts 
which  were  at  the  same  time  both  within  and  not  within  the 
City,  conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  privileged  persons,  edicts  which 
were  never  enforced,  —  all  these  make  the  situation  hard  to 
grasp.  As  late  as  1675  there  were  disputes  on  the  old  and 
unsettled  question  as  to  whether  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the  Court 
of  Aldermen  had  power  to  veto  decisions  and  orders  of  the 
Common  Council ;  '  and  a  capital  example  of  the  uncertainty  of 
the  municipal  jurisdiction  is  afforded  by  the  fact  that  it  seems 
never  to  have  been  decided  whether  the  Temple  is  in  the  City  or 
no.2  Of  course,  no  attempt  at  a  complete  elucidation  of  all 
such  matters  is  necessary  here ;  we  need  only  a  brief  statement 
of  the  general  situation  in  the  municipality  under  Elizabeth  and 
the  early  Stuarts,  so  far  as  this  affects  our  immediate  subject 
and  so  far  as  it  can  be  definitely  ascertained. 

The  city  government,  the  powers  and  privileges  of  which 
had  been  granted  and  confirmed  to  the  citizens  by  the  charters 
of  many  kings,  was  carried  on  by  a  Lord  Mayor,  a  Court  of 

1  Sharpe,  London  and  the  Kingdom,  II,  454. 
1  Loftie,  History  of  London,  I,  228. 
137 


138 

Aldermen,  and  a  Common  Council,  together  with  Sheriffs  and 
various  minor  officials.  By  a  strange  survival  of  medieval 
institutions,  the  election  of  these  officers,  and  thus  the  practical 
control  of  the  city  government,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  so-called 
"Livery  Companies."  These  were  the  twelve  great  trading 
companies  or  medieval  guilds,  called  "Livery"  from  the  uniform 
in  which  their  members  of  higher  grade  were  privileged  to  array 
themselves.  Their  control  of  the  corporation  was  exerted  as 
follows :  The  Mayor  and  the  Sheriffs  were  elected  by  the  Com- 
mon Council,  which  included  the  masters  and  wardens  of  the 
guilds.1  The  Mayor  was  chosen  annually  from  among  the 
Aldermen,  to  serve  for  one  year,  beginning  on  October  2&.2 
There  were  from  each  ward  one  Alderman,  elected  for  life,  and 
four  Common  Councilmen,  chosen  annually.3  These  Aldermen 
and  Councilmen  were  voted  for  by  the  freemen  in  the  various 
wards  who  were  also  householders  and  who  paid  the  taxes  known 
as  "scot  and  lot."4  This  rank  of  freeman,  or  possession  of 
the  "freedom  of  the  city,"  originally  connected  with  the  right  to 
trade,  could  be  obtained  only  through  membership  in  one  of  the 
great  trading  companies.  Thus  the  control  of  the  municipal 
franchise  was  in  the  hands  of  the  guilds,  —  a  strange  state  of 
affairs  which  prevailed  until  1835,  and  is  not  yet  entirely  abol- 
ished.5 

In  view  of  the  strong  opposition  to  plays  shown  by  the  city 
authorities,  it  is  interesting  to  investigate  the  organization  of 
these  powerful  guilds  and  the  classes  of  society  represented  in 
their  membership,  in  order  to  discover  what  portions  of  the 
community  probably  withheld  from  the  drama  their  approval 
and  patronage.  In  earlier  times  the  guilds  had  to  a  considerable 
extent  regulated  each  its  own  industry  —  by  putting  down 
adulteration,  for  instance  —  and  had  besides  this  exercised  vari- 
ous religious  and  charitable  functions.  By  the  end  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  however,  they  had  practically  ceased  to  be  of 

1  Merewether  and  Stephens,  Boroughs  and  Municipal  Corporations,  III, 
1938  ff.;    Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  III,  576. 

1  Stow,  Survey,  196.  3  Stubbs,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  576. 

*Ibid.;  Merewether  and  Stephens,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  i486,  1986,  2046;  Hazlitt, 
Livery  Companies,  80;   Besant,  Stuart  London,  119. 

*  Hazlitt,  Livery  Companies,  80. 


139 

any  use  for  industrial  purposes;  and  with  the  Reformation  their 
religious  function  had  also  passed  away.  They  continued  to 
exercise  hospitality  and  charity  and,  as.  we  have  seen,  to  control 
indirectly  the  municipal  government.1  Their  organization  con- 
sisted of  three  parts :  the  ordinary  members,  or  freemen ;  the 
"Livery,"  or  members  of  higher  grade,  privileged  to  wear  the 
uniform  of  the  company;  and  the  "Court,"  or  governing  body. 
Membership  might  be  gained  in  four  ways:  (i)  by  apprentice- 
ship; (2)  by  inheritance,  whereby  all  sons  and  daughters 
of  a  freeman  obtained  the  freedom;  (3)  by  redemption  or 
purchase,  a  means  by  which  many  non-residents  became 
freemen;  and  (4)  by  gift,  a  method  whereby  honorary  mem- 
bership was  conferred  on  many  kings,  princes,  noblemen,  and 
prelates.2 

The  twelve  Livery  Companies,  which  had  absorbed  many 
smaller  guilds,  and  dominated  by  recognized  right  over  the 
thirty-six  less  important  companies,  were  the  Mercers,  the 
Grocers,  the  Drapers,  the  Fishmongers,  the  Goldsmiths, 
the  Skinners,  the  Merchant  Taylors  or  Linen  Armorers,  the 
Haberdashers,  the  Salters,  the  Ironmongers,  the  Vintners,  and 
the  Cloth-workers.  As  indications  of  the  classes  of  people 
represented,  these  names  are  somewhat  misleading.  Some  of 
the  companies,  such  as  the  Mercers  and  the  Grocers,  appear  to 
have  consisted,  to  a  great  extent,  of  merchants  and  wholesale 
dealers;  others,  such  as  the  Fishmongers,  of  shopkeepers  and 
their  apprentices;  some,  like  the  Goldsmiths  and  the  Cloth- 
workers,  deriving  their  names  from  "arts  and  misteries," 
of  master  manufacturers  and  their  artisans.  But  because  of 
membership  by  inheritance  and  by  purchase,  and  a  system  of 
apprenticeship  which  did  not  require  any  actual  practice  of  a 
trade,  the  companies  had  consisted,  from  the  earliest  times, 
largely  of  non-craftsmen.  Their  organization  was,  moreover, 
usually  aristocratic.  Their  governing  bodies  consisted  generally 
of  the  principal  capitalists  and  employers  of  labor,  and  of  dis- 
tinguished citizens  not  connected  with  commerce  or  manufacture. 

1  Hazlitt,  Livery  Companies,  65. 

*  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  III,  576;  Hazlitt,  Livery  Companies,  75; 
Besant,  Stuart  London,  9. 


140 

There  was  practically  always  a  property  qualification  for  mem- 
bership in  the  "Livery."  x 

On  the  whole,  then,  the  municipal  government  was  controlled, 
as  one  might  expect,  by  the  upper  middle  class,  the  well-to-do 
merchants  and  city  capitalists;  and  it  is  evident  that  this  re- 
spectable, prosperous,  and  conservative  portion  of  society  was, 
on  the  whole,  hostile  to  the  drama,  and,  to  a  considerable  extent, 
withheld  its  patronage  from  the  theaters  throughout  most  of 
our  period. 

The  municipal  government  so  constituted  and  controlled 
exercised  jurisdiction  over  an  irregular  and  somewhat  uncertain 
territory.  The  question  of  the  topographical  limits  of  its  author- 
ity is  an  important  one  for  stage  history,  since  it  determined  the 
location  of  the  playhouses.  In  their  efforts  to  escape  from  the 
hostility  of  the  Lord  Mayor,  while  keeping  within  reach  of  their 
city  patrons,  the  players  erected  their  theaters  just  outside  his 
jurisdiction.  This  placed  them  in  close  proximity  to  the  dis- 
reputable houses  and  other  disorderly  resorts  which  clustered 
just  beyond  the  controlling  hand  of  the  city  authorities,  on  the 
borders  of  Southwark,  in  Shoreditch,  and  elsewhere,  —  an  un- 
fortunate association  which  must  have  affected  the  quality  of 
the  audience  throughout  most  of  the  period. 

London  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  was  a  city  of  considerable 
size,  wealth,  and  power.  It  included,  according  to  the  usual 
estimate,  about  a  hundred  thousand  inhabitants  within  the  city 
proper,  north  of  the  Thames;  and  there  were  about  as  many 
more  scattered  through  the  Borough  of  Southwark,  across  the 
river,  the  neighboring  city  of  Westminster,  and  the  adjoining 
suburbs.2  On  the  north  or  Middlesex  side  of  the  Thames,  the 
old  city  walls  inclosed  a  space  which  bore  in  shape  a  rough 
resemblance  to  a  strung  bow,  of  which  the  string  represents  the 
southern  line  along  the  Thames,  from  the  Tower  on  the  east  to 
Blackfriars  on  the  west.3    The  wall  on  the  land  side,  the  bent 

1  Hazlitt,  Livery  Companies,  64-65,  75. 

2  Campbell,  Tfie  Puritan,  I,  330;   Stephenson,  Shakespeare's  London,  69. 

3  For  the  topography  of  London  at  this  period  the  best  maps  are  Agas', 
c.  1561-1576,  published  with  notes  by  W.  H.  Overall;  Norden's,  1593,  published 
with  notes  by  H.  B.  Wheatley  in  Furnivall's  edition  of  Harrison's  Description 


141 

shaft  of  the  bow,  curved  irregularly  northward  between  these 
two  points,  passing  Aldgate,  not  far  north  of  the  Tower,  curving 
westward  past  Bishopsgate,  Morcgate,  and  Cripplegate,  and 
southward  past  Aldersgatc,  Newgate,  and  Ludgatc  to  the  pre- 
cinct of  the  Blackfriars  by  the  Thames.  We  may  gain  some 
notion  of  the  size  of  the  city  from  Stow's  statement  that  t he- 
circuit  of  this  wall,  on  the  land  side,  was  "two  English  miles 
and  more  by  608  feet."  '  The  territory  within  this  space  was, 
of  course,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Lord  Mayor  —  with 
some  exceptions  to  be  noted  later.  The  city  jurisdiction  had 
been  extended  also  beyond  the  walls  in  various  directions,  to 
points  where  "bars"  marked  the  limits  of  the  municipality. 
Up  to  the  bars  on  the  east,  outside  Aldgate,  lay  "Portsoken 
Ward  without  the  walls"; 2  north  of  Bishopsgate  extended  part 
of  Bishopsgate  Ward ; 3  and  north  of  Cripplegate,  part  of 
Cripplegate  Ward.4  West  of  the  wall  lay  the  ward  of  "Farring- 
don  Without,"  and  here  the  limits  of  the  City  were  marked  by 
Gray's  Inn  Bars  and  Temple  Bar.5 

Over  London  Bridge,  on  the  south  or  Surrey  side  of  the 
Thames,  lay  the  Borough  of  Southwark.  This  had  been  pos- 
sessed in  part  by  the  City  of  London  under  grants  of  Edward  III 
and  Edward  IV.6  By  a  charter  of  April  23,  1550,7  Edward  VI 
ceded  to  the  City  all  royal  liberties  and  franchises  in  that  Bor- 
ough, and  declared  the  inhabitants  thereof  subject  to  the  city 
laws  and  jurisdiction.  In  this  same  year,  1550,  the  Lord  Mayor 
marched  through  the  Borough  in  solemn  procession,  taking  formal 
possession.  It  was  intended,  no  doubt,  that  Southwark  should 
be  incorporated  for  all  municipal  purposes  with  the  City,  as  the 
ward  of  "Bridge  Without."  But  this  was  never  done.  The 
inhabitants  have  never  elected  an  Alderman  nor  sent  representa- 
tives to  the  Common  Council;   they  have  refused  to  "take  up 

of  England;  and  Ryther's,  1604,  reproduced  in  Lottie,  History  of  London, 
I,  282.  These,  with  Stow's  Survey,  first  written  in  1598,  give  a  fairly  good  idea 
of  the  city.  A  convenient  collection  of  maps  may  be  found  in  Baker,  Develop- 
ment of  Shakespeare. 

1  Stow,  Survey,  5.  J  Ibid.,  46-47.  3  Ibid.,  150. 

*  Ibid.,  109.  8  Ibid.,  138-139. 

'  Sharpe,  London  and  the  Kingdom,  I,  443  ff.;   Rendle,  Old  Southwark,  7  ff. 

7  Printed  in  Birch,  Historical  Charters  of  London,  no  ff. 


142 

their  freedom"  and  bear  the  burdens  of  citizenship.  For  some 
time  an  Alderman  for  this  ward  was  appointed  by  the  other 
Aldermen;  but  this  practice  was  given  up,  and  the  status  of 
Southwark  remained  uncertain  until,  in  1836,  a  Committee 
reported  to  the  Common  Council  that  the  Borough  had  never 
formed  part  of  the  City  of  London,  the  charter  of  Edward  VI 
notwithstanding. 1 

However,  we  may  imagine  that  the  Lord  Mayor,  with  the 
charter  of  Edward  VI  to  support  him,  would  certainly  have 
used  his  authority  over  Southwark  had  the  theaters  on  the 
Surrey  side  been  placed  within  that  Borough.  They  were  not ; 
they  were  situated  outside  the  limits  of  the  Borough,  in  the 
"Liberties."  This  word  is  the  cause  of  some  confusion  to  any 
one  investigating  the  documents  of  the  time.  It  is  sometimes 
used  to  indicate  the  rights  and  privileges  of  a  city  or  other  divi- 
sion, and  hence  the  geographical  and  governmental  limits  of 
that  city.  Thus  a  company  of  players  is  authorized  to  perform 
"  within  the  liberties  and  freedoms  of  any  of  our  Cities  .  .  .  and 
without  the  same."  Or  a  "Liberty"  may  mean  a  locality  or 
administrative  division  outside  the  Lord  Mayor's  jurisdiction, 
possessing,  as  an  inheritance  from  feudal  or  ecclesiastical  cus- 
toms, certain  privileges  or  exemptions.  Thus  we  read  of  "the 
Manor  or  Liberty  of  the  Clink,"  "the  Liberty  of  Holywell," 
etc.  The  "Liberties  of  London"  may  thus  mean  either  those 
portions  within  the  Mayor's  jurisdiction,  or  those  divisions  lying 
outside  his  jurisdiction.  "A  Liberty,"  however,  seems  to  refer 
always  to  one  of  the  latter.  With  these  facts  in  mind,  one  can 
generally  tell  from  the  context  the  meaning  of  the  term. 

On  the  Surrey  side  of  the  Thames,  as  we  have  seen,  just  south 
of  London  Bridge,  lay  the  Borough  of  Southwark.  To  the  west 
of  this,  outside  the  Mayor's  jurisdiction,  though  just  across  the 
narrow  river  from  the  heart  of  London,  were  two  Liberties  border- 
ing on  the  "  Bankside"  along  the  Thames.2    First  lay  the  Manor 

1  Sharpe,  op.  cit.,  I,  443.  An  interesting  and  more  detailed  account  of  this 
anomalous  situation  is  given  in  Benham  and  Welch,  Mediaeval  London,  41-42. 

2  The  best  authority  for  this  locality  is  Rendle,  who  gives  Norden's  map  of 
r593>  with  comments,  and  a  smaller  map,  in  his  Old  Southwark,  xxii-xxiii 
and  200.  See  also  Ordish,  Early  London  Theatres;  and  Wheatley  and  Cun- 
ningham, London  Past  and  Present,  III,  29-30. 


143 

or  Liberty  of  the  Clink  (so  called  from  the  Clink  prison),  a  manor 
of  the  Bishop  of  Winchester,  under  whose  seigniorial  protection 
disorderly  houses  nourished.  Within  this  Liberty  were  three 
theaters,  —  the  Globe,  the  Rose,  and  the  Hope  or  Bear  Garden. 
Adjoining  this  on  the  west  was  the  Manor  or  Liberty  of  Paris 
Garden,  where  the  Swan  was  situated.1  West  of  Paris  Garden 
lay  Lambert  Marsh.  The  parish  of  St.  Saviour's,  of  which  we 
often  hear  in  connection  with  theatrical  affairs,  included  much 
of  the  Borough  of  Southwark  and  the  Liberties  of  the  Clink  and 
Paris  Garden.2 

Southwest  of  Southwark,  beyond  the  open  space  of  St.  George's 
Fields,  lay  Newington.  The  boundaries  of  Southwark  extended 
almost  to  the  parish  church  of  this  town,3  and  just  outside  the 
borough  limits  was  the  Newington  theater,4  —  also,  of  course,  be- 
yond the  Lord  Mayor's  jurisdiction. 

On  the  Middlesex  side  of  the  Thames,  north  of  the  wall, 
beyond  the  bars  which  marked  the  limits  of  BishopsgateWard, 
were  several  Liberties,  especially  the  Liberty  of  Holywell,  the 
precinct  of  the  former  priory  of  St.  John  the  Baptist.  Here, 
near  Finsbury  Field  and  Shoreditch,  were  the  Theater  and  the 
Curtain.5  Farther  to  the  west,  north  of  Cripplegate,  near 
Golding  Lane,  and  just  outside  the  bars  bounding  the  portion 
of  Cripplegate  Ward  without  the  walls,  was  the  Fortune 
theater,  in  the  Liberty  of  Finsbury.6 

These  theaters  "in  the  fields,"  on  the  Surrey  and  the  Middle- 
sex sides  of  the  Thames,  were  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Jus- 
tices of  the  Peace  for  these  counties,  to  whom  the  Privy  Council 
sent  its  orders  concerning  the  players  and  upon  whom  it  relied 
for  their  enforcement. 

Most  puzzling  of  all  to  the  modern  American  mind  are  various 
Liberties  which  were  scattered  through  the  City  proper,  sur- 

1  Some  confusion  is  caused  by  the  fact  that  the  term  "Paris  Garden"  was 
sometimes  used  loosely  to  mean  all  this  locality  of  the  Bankside. 

1  Rendle,  Old  Southwark,  no,  1 21-122.  s  Stow,  Survey,  150. 

4  Concerning  this  theater  see  Ordish,  Early  London  Theatres,  142  ff. 

s  Stow,  Survey,  158;    Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare, 

335  ff- 

•Stow,  Survey,  109;  contract  for  erection  of  the  Fortune,  Halliwell-Phil- 
lipps, Outlines,  462;    Ilenslowe  Papers,  50. 


144 

rounded  by  the  Lord  Mayor's  jurisdiction  but  exempt  therefrom, 
holding  special  privileges  from  the  Crown  by  reason  of  their 
being  the  precincts  of  dissolved  monasteries,  which  in  their 
day  had,  of  course,  been  exempt  from  civic  authority.1  The 
most  important  of  these  districts,  from  the  theatrical  point  of 
view,  were  Whitefriars,  on  the  north  bank  of  the  Thames,  just 
east  of  the  Temple,  the  site  of  the  Whitefriars  and  other  later 
theaters;  and  especially  Blackfriars,  also  bordering  on  the 
river,  a  little  farther  east,  where  Burbage  had  his  famous  private 
theater.  The  exemption  of  these  districts  within  the  City  was 
naturally  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  the  municipal  authorities.  Shortly 
after  the  dissolution  of  Blackfriars  monastery  and  its  surrender 
to  the  Crown  in  1538,  the  Lord  Mayor  endeavored  to  obtain 
from  the  King  the  abolition  of  the  district's  privileges;  but 
Henry  replied  that  he  was  as  well  able  to  maintain  the  liberties 
of  the  precinct  as  ever  the  friars  were.2  Other  attempts  to 
invade  the  Liberty  were  made  by  the  municipal  authorities. 
In  1574,  for  example,  we  find  that  the  City  of  London  had 
"pretended  interest"  in  Blackfriars,  and  that  the  Privy  Council 
commanded  the  Mayor  "not  to  intermeddle  to  the  impeachment 
of  such  liberties  and  franchises  until  further  orders." 3  In 
1596,  therefore,  when  Burbage  established  his  Blackfriars 
playhouse,  that  precinct  was  outside  the  Lord  Mayor's  jurisdic- 
tion, and  the  inhabitants  of  the  Liberty,  when  they  wished  the 
theater  prohibited,  appealed  for  protection  to  the  Privy  Council. 
Since  the  Liberties  of  Blackfriars  and  Whitefriars  were  appar- 
ently not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Middlesex  Justices  of 
the  Peace,  who  were  expected  to  enforce  order  at  the  Holywell 
and  Finsbury  theaters,  one  is  puzzled  at  first  to  decide  under 
whose  jurisdiction  they  actually  were.  Of  course  the  authority 
of  the  Crown  and  of  the  Privy  Council  was  supreme  over  them, 
after  the  precincts  passed  from  the  possession  of  the  Church. 
But  what  officials  were  actually  in  charge,  with  a  jurisdiction 

1  Some  idea  of  the  ecclesiastical  foundations  in  London  which  later  became 
Liberties  may  be  obtained  from  a  map  of  the  City  in  the  13th  century,  in 
Loftie,  History  of  London,  I,  120. 

2  Wheatley  and  Cunningham,  London  Past  and  Present,  I,  193-194;  Stow, 
Survey,  127. 

3  Ads,  VIII,  240,  257. 


145 

corresponding  to  that  of  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the  Justices  of  the 
Peace  in  the  neighboring  districts?  An  order  issued  by  the 
Privy  Council  in  1597  seems  to  answer  this  question  definitely 
enough.  No  officials  whatsoever  were  in  charge.  Some  dispute 
had  arisen  concerning  payments  for  repairs  in  Blackfriars,  and 
this  was  referred  by  the  Privy  Council,  on  January  26,  1597,  to 
a  commission  consisting  of  the  Lord  Chief  Justice,  Lord  Huns- 
don  and  others,  who  were  to  report  to  the  Lords  their  opinion  on 
this  question,  and  also,  according  to  the  Council  order,  "con- 
cerninge  an  other  point  in  the  peticion  for  the  government  of 
the  said  libertic  of  the  Black  and  White  Fryers,  which  being 
grown  more  populus  than  heretofore  and  without  any  certaine 
and  knowen  officer  to  keepe  good  orders  there,  needeth  to  be 
reformed  in  that  bchalfe,  and  herein  we  shall  be  glad  to  have 
your  Lordships  advise  and  opinion."  * 

There  was,  of  course,  a  parish  organization  which  served  for 
some  purposes  of  local  government ;  but  in  the  time  of  dangerous 
disorders  or  other  emergencies  the  situation  of  Blackfriars  and 
Whitefriars  was  an  awkward  one.  The  Lords  seem  to  have  been 
in  the  habit  of  meeting  the  difficulty  on  such  occasions  by 
appointing,  in  each  of  the  precincts,  some  prominent  man  of 
rank  to  take  temporary  charge.  In  June,  1592,  when  serious 
riots  were  feared  on  Midsummer  Night,  and  the  Privy  Council 
desired  to  take  stringent  measures  against  disorder,  they  com- 
manded that  an  armed  watch  of  householders  should  be  organ- 
ized in  and  about  London.2  A  list  of  the  persons  to  whom  these 
orders  were  sent  may  be  found  in  the  Council  Register.  It  is 
an  illuminating  example  of  the  divided  jurisdiction  exercised 
over  the  metropolitan  district,  and  the  complicated  difficulty  of 
getting  such  a  general  command  enforced.  Orders  wrere  sent 
to  the  Lord  Mavor  of  London ;  to  the  Master  of  the  Rolls  3 
and  four  other  Justices  of  the  Peace  of  the  County  of  Middlesex, 
for  Holborn,  St.  Giles  in  the  Fields,  Clerkenwell,  and  neighboring 
places ;  to  three  Justices  of  the  Peace  of  the  County  of  Surrey, 
for  the  precincts  of  Newington,  Kentish  Street,  Barmondsey 
Street,  the  Clink,  Paris  Garden,  and  the  Bankside ;  to  the  Lieu- 

1  Acts,  XXVI,  448-449-        2  See  below,  pp.  179  fT.        s  See  above,  p.  54- 

L 


146 

tenant  of  the  Tower  and  the  Master  of  St.  Catherine's  for  the 
precincts  of  St.  Catherine's  and  East  Smithfield;  to  Lord 
Wentworth  for  Ratcliffe,  Shoreditch,  and  Whitechapel ;  to  Lord 
Cobham  for  the  Blackfriars;  to  Sir  Thomas  Shirley  for  the 
Whitefriars ;  and  to  the  Bailiff  of  Westminster  for  Westminster, 
St.  Martin's,  and  the  Strand.1  It  will  be  noticed  that  Lord 
Cobham  was  called  on  to  organize  the  watch  and  preserve  order 
in  Blackfriars.  His  residence  was  in  that  precinct,2  and  he  was 
a  nobleman  of  distinction,  —  Lord  Warden  of  the  Cinq  Ports, 
Lord  Lieutenant  of  Kent,  a  member  of  the  Privy  Council,  and 
later  Lord  Chamberlain.  He  seems  therefore  to  have  been 
chosen  for  this  duty  as  the  most  prominent  and  powerful  resi- 
dent of  the  Liberty.  The  duty  in  Whitefriars  was  similarly 
assigned  to  Sir  Thomas  Shirley,  then  Treasurer  at  War  for  the 
Low  Countries. 

In  spite  of  the  investigation  intrusted  to  the  commission  in 
January,  1597,  no  action  seems  to  have  been  taken.  Black- 
friars and  Whitefriars  apparently  remained  in  the  same  uncer- 
tain jurisdiction  until  after  James'  accession;  though  we  find 
that  in  March,  1599,  in  the  case  of  certain  taxes  the  Lord  Mayor 
was  intrusted  with  the  assessment  of  Blackfriars.3 

But  in  1608  a  decisive  step  was  finally  taken  to  remedy  this 
anomalous  state  of  affairs ;  and  the  two  famous  Liberties  came 
at  last  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Lord  Mayor.  On  Sep- 
tember 20  of  that  year  James  granted  a  new  charter  to  the  City 
of  London,  confirming  all  former  charters  and  customs  and  ex- 
tending the  city  liberties  through  various  districts,  including 
"the  several  circuits,  bounds,  limits,  franchises  and  jurisdic- 
tions of  .  .  .  the  late  dissolved  house  or  priory  of  Preaching 
Friars  within  and  at  Ludgate,  London,  commonly  called  Black- 
friars ;  and  also  the  late  dissolved  house  or  priory  of  Friars  of  the 
Order  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  of  Mount  Carmel,  called 
Whitefriars."  These  places  shall  be  for  all  time  to  come  "  within 
the  circuits,  precincts,  liberties,  franchises  and  jurisdictions  of 
the  same  our  City  of  London.  .  .  .     And  all  and  singular  the 

1  Acts,  XXII,  549,  5Si. 

2  See  the  deed  quoted  in  Fleay,  London  Stage,  153. 
s  Acts,  XXX,  149-150. 


147 

inhabitants  and  dwellers  within  the  same,  or  any  of  them,  shall 
be,  and  every  of  them  is  and  for  all  time  to  come  shall  be  and 
remain  under  the  rule,  government,  jurisdiction,  oversight, 
search,  correction,  punishment,  precepts  and  arrests  of  the  said 
Mayor  and  commonaltv  and  citizens  .  .  .  and  the  Sheriffs  of 
London  .  .  .  any  liberties,  franchises,  privileges,  exemption  or 
authority  whatsoever  to  the  contrary  thereof  notwithstanding." 
It  is  provided,  however,  that  the  inhabitants  of  Black  friars  and 
Whitefriars  (though  not  those  of  the  other  districts  concerned) 
shall  be  exempt  from  certain  taxes  and  from  holding  certain 
offices.1 

Some  privileges  of  sanctuary  also  remained  to  portions  of 
these  districts.  Before  the  breaking  up  of  the  monasteries,  the 
priories  of  the  Black  and  the  White  Friars  had  possessed  these 
rights  of  sanctuary.  Such  privileges  were,  however,  restricted 
by  laws  of  Henry  VIII  to  minor  offenders,  and  not  available  for 
murderers,  thieves,  and  like  criminals.2  After  the  dissolution 
of  the  monasteries  the  privileges  clung  irregularly  to  portions 
of  the  two  precincts.  Blackfriars  became  a  respectable  and  in 
part  aristocratic  quarter,  inhabited  largely  by  Puritans,  many  of 
them  feather-makers,  and  by  noblemen.  It  therefore  seems  to 
have  taken  little  if  any  advantage  of  the  sanctuary  privileges. 
But  Whitefriars  was  a  notoriously  disreputable  district,  and  the 
criminal  classes  who  flocked  there  claimed  all  the  privileges 
allowed  by  law  and  far  more.  Though  the  exemptions  seem  to 
have  extended  legally  only  to  cases  of  debt,  other  refugees  from 
justice  fled  thither,  and  Whitefriars,  or  "Alsatia,"  as  it  was 
called,  became  the  resort  of  the  outcasts  of  society,  —  a 
communitv  so  lawless  that  even  the  warrant  of  the  Chief  Justice 
of  England  could  not  be  executed  there  without  the  help  of  a 
company  of  musketeers.3  By  the  Statute  21  James  I,  cap.  28 
(1623-1624),  all  rights  of  sanctuary  in  England  were  abol- 
ished absolutely.     But  Whitefriars  continued  to  claim  them  in 

1  Charter  of  James  I,  September  20,  1608.  Printed  in  Birch,  Historical 
Charters  of  London,  139  ff. 

1  Stephen,  Criminal  Law  0/  England,  I,  491. 

*  See  Whcatleyand  Cunningham,  London  Past  and  Present,  I,  41-42;  III,  503. 
"Alsatia"  is  best  known  from  Scott's  Fortunes  0/ Nigel,  but  was  treated  earlier 
by  Shad  well  in  The  Squire  0/  Alsatia. 


148 

defiance  of  the  law,  and,  as  the  Sheriffs  were  afraid  to  enforce 
writs  in  the  precinct,  was  long  successful  in  maintaining  some 
of  its  exemptions.  The  Statute  8  and  9  William  III,  cap.  27 
(1697),  shows  the  strange  state  of  affairs  which  was  still  sur- 
viving, by  making  it  penal  in  Sheriffs  not  to  execute  process 
in  certain  "pretended  privileged  places"  such  as  Whitefriars 
and  the  Savoy.1 

Theoretically  and  legally  it  would  seem  that  these  fragmentary 
and  anomalous  privileges  of  sanctuary  could  have  had  no  effect 
on  the  Lord  Mayor's  jurisdiction  over  the  theaters  in  the  pre- 
cincts of  Blackfriars  and  Whitefriars.  After  1608  his  authority 
certainly  extended  over  these  districts.2  In  the  peaceable  pre- 
cinct of  Blackfriars,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  questioned ; 
but  the  lawless  community  of  Whitefriars  no  doubt  made  diffi- 
cult the  enforcement  of  any  sort  of  municipal  order. 

I  have  treated  the  status  of  these  two  Liberties  thus  elabo- 
rately because  disregard  of  the  change  made  by  the  charter  of 
1608  has  slightly  confused  some  histories  of  the  stage.  As  we 
shall  see,  the  Lord  Mayor  endeavored  later  to  exercise  his  author- 
ity over  Blackfriars  against  Burbage's  theater;  but  not  until  a 
date  when  royal  authority  was  paramount,  and  the  players  had 
little  to  fear  from  the  hostility  of  the  municipality. 

In  spite  of  the  charters  granted  to  the  City,  the  right  of  the 
royal  government  to  interfere  in  this  district  over  which  the 
Lord  Mayor  ruled  was  apparently  limited  only  by  motives  of 
expediency.  It  has  generally  been  underrated  by  historians  of 
the  stage.  We  must  remember  that  the  authority  of  the  Crown, 
under  the  Tudor  and  Stuart  despotism,  was  considered  para- 
mount. Royal  patents,  as  we  have  seen,  were  given  a  power 
superior  even  to  the  statutes,  and  were  expressly  granted  "any 
act,  statute,  proclamation  or  commandment  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding."  During  the  period,  moreover,  as  we  have 
observed  in  the  case  of  the  laws  regulating  the  status  of  players 
and  the  censorship,  there  was  a  steady  centralization  of  power, 

1  Stephen,  Criminal  Law  of  England,  I,  491-492.  The  Savoy  was  another 
Liberty  to  the  west  of  the  City. 

2  See  the  recognition  of  this  in  the  case  of  Blackfriars  by  the  Lord  Chief  Justice 
in  1615,  mentioned  below,  pp.  199-200. 


149 

a  removal  of  administration  from  the  hands  of  local  officials  to 
the  royal  government.  This  course  of  policy  is  evident  in  the 
dealings  of  the  Crown  with  the  Corporation  of  London  in  con- 
nection with  theatrical  affairs.  Its  interference  became  bolder 
and  more  arbitrary,  passing  from  requests  to  commands. 

But  there  were  some  limits  to  such  coercion  of  the  municipal- 
it  v.  The  powerful  and  wealthy  Corporation  of  London  was 
too  important  to  be  utterly  antagonized.  Before  Elizabeth's 
day  the  capital  had  been  the  determining  factor  in  the  making 
and  unmaking  of  kings ;  and  even  when  the  great  Queen  feared 
no  such  extremity,  she  was  in  frequent  need  of  the  money  and 
men  which  the  loyal  metropolis  could  supply.  Hence,  during 
most  of  her  reign,  the  tone  of  royal  despotism  was  softened  at 
times;  and  the  City,  conscious  of  its  power  and  its  rights, 
occasionally  assumed  a  bold  attitude  in  asserting  its  privileges. 
But  as  the  years  passed  and  the  Stuarts  reigned,  its  manner  grew 
more  subservient.  However  much  the  Puritan  spirit  was  in- 
creasing within,  outwardly  and  officially  the  municipality  as  a 
rule  submitted  respectfully  to  the  royal  will.  Such,  at  all  events, 
is  the  course  seen  in  dramatic  affairs. 

The  long  conflict  concerning  the  admission  of  plays  into 
London,  which  is  the  most  interesting  feature  in  the  history  of 
local  stage  regulation,  arose  from  the  essentially  differing  atti- 
tudes held  by  the  Crown  and  the  Privy  Council,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  city  government,  on  the  other,  towards  the  performance 
of  plays  in  London.  The  Privy  Council,  representing,  of  course, 
the  views  of  the  Queen,  held  the  traditional  English  attitude 
toward  the  stage,  —  that  plays  are  not  in  themselves  evil,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  entirely  justifiable,  —  "for  honest  recreation 
sake,"  as  the  Lords  once  put  it.  The  Queen,  as  is  well  known, 
wrent  even  further  than  this  in  her  extreme  fondness  for  dramatic 
performances,  and  many  of  the  Councillors  were  also  warm 
friends  of  the  drama  and  patrons  of  companies.  The  position 
of  the  royal  government  was  therefore  on  the  whole  one  of 
generous  and  sympathetic  patronage  of  the  stage.  The  chief 
reason  advanced  by  the  Privy  Council  for  the  admission  of  the 
players  into  London  —  a  reason  reiterated  on  all  occasions  and 
respectfully  received  by  the  City  —  was  that  the   actors  must 


150 

have  practice  in  order  to  perfect  themselves  for  their  perform- 
ances before  the  Queen.  This  was  the  root  of  all  the  difficulty, 
and  the  ground  of  the  granting  to  the  favored  players  of  those 
special  and  exclusive  privileges  which  developed  into  the  mo- 
nopolistic system  of  patented  companies. 

Under  certain  circumstances,  of  course,  the  Privy  Council 
believed  that  no  plays  should  be  allowed  in  and  about  London ; 
and  they  frequently  ordered  their  suppression :  —  in  times  of 
plague  or  danger  of  plague;  because  of  the  representation  of 
unfit  matters,  seditious  or  personal,  upon  the  stage;  because 
of  disorders  at  the  theaters,  or,  when  riots  were  expected,  fear 
that  such  assemblages  might  foment  disorder.  They  sometimes 
restricted  the  number  of  performances,  because  frequent  rep- 
resentations led  people  to  wasteful  and  riotous  living.  They 
forbade  them  on  Sunday,  in  Lent,  and  sometimes  on  Thursday, 
because  on  that  day  they  interfered  with  the  Queen's  bear  baiters. 
But  under  proper  restrictions  they  saw  nothing  wrong  in  them. 

The  city  authorities  agreed  with  the  Lords  in  desiring  plays 
stopped  for  these  reasons.  They  too,  and  even  more  acutely, 
feared  the  danger  of  infection.  They  dreaded,  much  more  deeply, 
the  disorder  growing  from  such  assemblages  of  the  baser  elements 
of  the  population.  Far  more  important,  —  they  feared  the  effect 
of  the  drama  upon  the  morals  of  the  people.  Not  only  did  plays 
lead  the  citizens  to  wasteful  expenditure,  and  interfere  with 
their  industry,  but,  to  the  minds  of  the  London  authorities, 
they  corrupted  the  morals  of  the  city  and  led  astray  its  youth. 
Finally,  apart  from  all  matters  of  expediency,  in  the  opinion  of 
many  of  the  municipal  officials  and  citizens,  all  plays  were  essen- 
tially sinful  and  irreligious, — an  abomination  in  the  sight  of  God. 
This  was  the  new,  the  Puritan  attitude.  Though  no  doubt 
many  of  the  London  officials  opposed  the  stage  on  the  other 
grounds,  independent  of  any  Puritan  principles,  it  was  this  deep 
religious  conviction  on  the  part  of  most  of  the  city  which  made 
the  opposition  of  the  municipal  government  to  plays  especially 
bitter.  The  Lord  Mayor  felt  himself  the  guardian  of  the  moral 
and  spiritual  welfare  of  the  citizens.  Roger  Ascham,  in  his 
Scholemaster,  written  shortly  before  his  death  in  1568,  recog- 
nizes in  an  interesting  passage  this  moral  zeal  in  the  chief  officer 


151 

of  the  municipality.  "Yea,  the  Lord  Maior  of  London,  being 
but  a  Ciuill  officer,  is  commonlie,  for  his  tyme,  more  diligent  in 
punishing  sinne,  the  bent  enemie  against  God  and  good  order, 
than  all  the  bloodie  Inquisitors  in  Italie  be  in  seaven  yeare."  l 

These  were  the  attitudes  held,  in  general,  by  the  Crown  and 
the  City  during  the  controversy  of  the  last  quarter  or  more  of 
the  sixteenth  century.  But  we  must  not  expect  to  find  them  pre- 
served with  entire  consistency.  A  new  Lord  Mayor  was  elected 
each  year ;  the  Lords  upon  the  Privy  Council  frequently  changed ; 
and  as  different  individuals  and  different  influences  came  into 
play,  the  policy  of  the  authorities  varied.  Sometimes  the  Privy 
Council  seems  strongly  opposed  to  plays;  sometimes  the  City 
seems  lax  in  suppressing  them. 

Though  the  real  controversy  does  not  begin  until  about  1573, 
some  facts  have  come  down  to  us  which  show  that  thirty  years 
before  this  the  Lord  Mayor  was  already  appealing  to  the  Privy 
Council  against  actors.  On  March  31,  1543,  he  complained  to 
the  Lords  of  the  "licentious  manner  of  players."  2  A  few  days 
later,  on  April  10,  two  companies,  we  learn  from  the  Council 
Register,  had  to  be  suppressed.  One,  a  nobleman's  company,  — 
four  players  "belonging  to  my  Lord  Warden,"  —  "for  playing 
contrary  to  an  order  taken  by  the  Mayor  on  that  behalf,  were 
committed  to  the  Countours."  3  On  the  same  day  a  craftsman 
company  was  in  trouble.  "  Certain  joyners  to  the  number  of  xx 
having  made  a  disguising  upon  the  Sonday  morning  without 
respect  either  of  the  day  or  the  order  which  was  known  openly 
the  Kings  Highness  intended  to  take  for  the  repressing  of  plays, 
were  therefore  committed  to  warde."  4  Most  of  the  joiners, 
"after  a  good  lesson,"  were  restored  to  liberty  four  days  later;5 
but  three  of  them,  who  had  been  committed  to  the  Tower,  were 
not  released  until  more  than  two  weeks  had  passed.6  Just  why 
the  Council  punished  these  players  is  not  entirely  clear.  Prob- 
ably the  Mayor's  complaint  of  March  31  had  resulted  in  some 
royal  order  against  plays,  and  it  was  for  breach  of  this  that  the 
actors  were  imprisoned.     But  the  reference  to  their  lack  of  re- 


1  Arber's  edition,  84.  *  Acts,  I,  103-104.  *  Ibid.,  109. 

*Ibid.  '  Ibid.,  no.  9  Ibid.,  122. 


152 

spect  for  Sunday  seems  to  show  that  there  was  already  some 
feeling  against  performances  of  certain  sorts  on  that  day. 

In  an  earlier  chapter  we  have  considered  the  most  significant 
points  in  the  regulation  of  the  London  drama  during  the  reigns  of 
Edward  VI  and  Mary :  the  suppression  of  occasional  seditious 
plays,  and  the  delegation  of  censoring  power  to  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don.1 Elizabeth's  proclamation  of  May  16, 1559,  as  we  have  seen,2 
gave  to  the  municipal  authorities  the  power  to  censor  and  license 
plays  in  cities ;  and  under  such  a  system  London  lived  for  some 
years.  The  great  importance  and  power  of  the  London  Corpo- 
ration enabled  it  to  take  towards  traveling  companies  a  firmer  atti- 
tude than  was  possible  for  the  smaller  towns  of  England.  But  the 
prescriptive  right  to  play  possessed  by  a  properly  authorized  com- 
pany seems  to  have  had  some  effect  even  at  the  capital.  The 
municipal  authorities  were  sometimes  chary  of  refusing  a  noble- 
man's request  that  his  company  be  allowed  to  perform  within 
the  City.      The  royal  authorization  they  rarely  dared  to  oppose. 

The  first  definite  expression  in  London  of  the  Puritan  attitude 
towards  the  drama  occurs  in  1563,  in  the  voice  of  Grindal,  later 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  but  at  this  time  Bishop  of  London, 
known  for  his  Puritan  leanings.  In  1563  a  great  plague  was 
raging  in  the  city,  and  Grindal  appealed  to  the  Privy  Council 
to  stop  all  plays.  The  assemblages  which  they  caused,  he  urged, 
were  the  most  dangerous  means  of  spreading  the  infection.  More- 
over, the  players,  he  said,  were  "an  idle  sort  of  people,  which  hact 
been  infamous  ihliTl  good  commonweliTfhV';  and"""  God's  woid— 
was  profaned  by  their  impure  mouths,  and  turned  into  scoffs." 
He  therefore  advised  "That  a  proclamatrorrbe  issued  inhibiting 
•  all  plays  within  the  City~or  three  miles  thereof  for  the  space^of  a 
year  —  "and  if  it  vveie  fur_eyer,  it  were  not  amiss."  "  What 
actiorrthe  government  took  as  a  result  of  this  appeal  does  not 
appear.  In  1572,  however,  we  have  record  that  "plays  were 
banished  for  a  time  out  of  London,  lest  the  resort  unto  them  should 
engender  a  plague,  or  rather  disperse  it,  being  already  begonne."  4 

'See  above,  pp.  8  ff.  2p.  14.  s  Strype,  Life  of  Grindal,  121-122. 

*  Extracts  from  MSS.  of  Harrison's  Chronologic,  in  Harrison's  Description 
of  England,  edited  by  Furnivall  in  the  New  Shakspere  Society  Publications, 
Pt.  I,  liv. 


153 

The  opposition  to  plays  in  the  City  had  apparently  by  this  time 
risen  high,  and  the  success  of  tins  temporary  prohibition  of  them 
perhaps  encouraged  the  municipal  authorities,  who  now  began 
their  long  and  bitter  war  against  the  London  stage.  The  first 
campaign  may  be  said  to  have  lasted  from  1573  to  1576,  and  to 
have  resulted  in  the  building  of  the  regular  theaters  in  the 
Liberties. 

The  first  gun  seems  to  have  been  fired  in  July,  1573,  when  the 
Privy  Council  apparently  began  its  practice  of  securing  special 
privileges  within  the  City  for  favored  performers.  On  July  14, 
we  learn  from  the  Council  Register,  the  Lords  requested  the 
Mayor  "to  permit  liberty  to  certain  Italian  players  to  make  show 
of  an  instrument  of  strange  motions  within  the  City."  !  But 
the  municipal  authorities  were  apparently  already  showing  the 
comparative  boldness  and  independence  which  characterized  their 
attitude  during  all  this  first  campaign.  Five  days  later  the  Coun- 
cil had  to  write  to  the  Lord  Mayor  again,  reiterating  their  de- 
mand and  "marveling  that  he  did  it  not  at  their  first  request."  2 
The  sequel  does  not  appear,  but  one  fears  that  the  Mayor  had  to 
acquiesce. 

The  demand  for  license  to  play  in  the  inn-yards  within  the 
City  was  now  so  considerable,  and  the  difficulty  of  securing  such 
permission  from  the  municipality  so  great,  that  it  apparently 
occurred  to  some  one  to  devise  a  sort  of  "licensing  patent," 
something  like  those  which  we  have  already  considered,3  granting 
to  the  patentee  the  right  to  license  playing  places  within  the 
City.  The  privilege  would  probably  have  been  a  profitable  one, 
as  the  Master  of  the  Revels  proved  in  later  years.  The  scheme 
had  evidently  been  suggested  several  times.  We  have  our  first 
definite  knowledge  of  it,  however,  in  March,  1574,  when  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  proposed  to  grant  such  a  privilege  to  one  Holmes. 
But  before  carrying  out  the  plan,  the  Chamberlain,  with  due 
regard,  in  this  instance,  for  the  rights  and  feelings  of  the  city 
authorities,  requested  their  assent.  Our  knowledge  of  the  affair 
is  derived  wholly  from  the  letter  in  which  the  Mayor  and  the 
Corporation  replied  to  this  request.     It  is  particularly  interesting 

1  Acts,  VIII,  131.  2  Ibid.,  132.  s  See  above,  p.  45. 


154 

as  showing  the  bold  and  jealous  guardianship  of  their  liberties 
and  privileges  which  the  municipality  dared  at  this  time  to  assert 
against  the  encroachment  of  the  royal  officials.  One  should 
note,  however,  that  the  request  had  apparently  not  been  made  in 
the  Queen's  name,  but  solely  by  the  authority  of  the  Lord  Cham- 
berlain. 

"Our  dutie  to  your  good  L.  humbly  done.  Whereas  your  Lord, 
hath  made  request  in  favour  of  one  Holmes  for  our  assent  that  he 
might  have  the  appointment  of  places  for  playes  and  enterludes  within 
this  citie,  it  may  please  your  L.  to  reteine  undoubted  assurance  of  our 
redinesse  to  gratifie,  in  any  thing  that  we  reasonably  may,  any  per- 
sone  whom  your  L.  shall  favor  and  recommend.  Howbeit  this  case 
is  such,  and  so  nere  touching  the  governance  of  this  citie  in  one  of 
the  greatest  matters  thereof,  namely  the  assemblies  of  multitudes  of 
the  Queenes  people,  and  regard  to  be  had  to  sundry  inconveniences, 
whereof  the  peril  is  continually,  upon  everie  occasion,  to  be  foreseen 
by  the  rulers  of  this  citie,  that  we  cannot,  with  our  duties,  byside  the 
precident  farre  extending  to  the  hart  of  our  liberties,  well  assent  that 
the  sayd  apointement  of  places  be  committed  to  any  private  persone. 
For  which,  and  other  reasonable  considerations,  it  hath  long  since 
pleased  your  good  L.  among  the  rest  of  her  Majesties  most  honourable 
counsell,  to  rest  satisfied  with  our  not  granting  to  such  persone  as, 
by  their  most  honourable  letters,  was  heretofore  in  like  case  com- 
mended to  us.  Byside  that,  if  it  might  with  reasonable  convenience 
be  granted,  great  offres  have  been,  and  be  made  for  the  same  to  the 
relefe  of  the  poore  in  the  hospitalles,  which  we  hold  as  assured,  that 
your  L.  will  well  allow  that  we  prefer  before  the  benefit  of  any  private 
person.  And  so  we  commit  your  L.  to  the  tuition  of  Almighty  God. 
At  London,  this  second  of  March,  1573."  l 

The  opposition  to  plays  on  the  part  of  the  city  officials  was 
now  very  decided,  and  the  players  evidently  appealed  against  it 
to  their  patrons  and  to  the  Privy  Council.  On  March  22,  a  few 
days  after  the  letter  just  quoted,  the  Council  wrote  to  the  Lord 
Mayor,  asking  him  "to  advertise  their  Lordships  what  causes 
he  hath  to  restrain  plays,  to  thintent  their  Lordships  may  the 
better  answer  such  as  desire  to  have  liberty  for  the  same."  2 
The  Mayor's  presentation  of  the  causes  of  restraint  was  appar- 

1  Printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  23-24.  Hazlitt,  however,  does  not 
understand  its  significance,  and  gives  it  an  inaccurate  and  misleading  title. 

2  Acts,  VIII,  215. 


155 

cntly  not  entirely  convincing  to  the  royal  government;  or  at  all 
events  one  company,  so  fortunate  as  to  have  for  its  patron  the 
Queen's  favorite,  and  also  to  be  able  to  give  her  Majesty  "solace 
and  pleasure"  by  its  court  performances,  had  powerful  enough 
iniluence  to  override  the  opposition  of  the  City.  The  Earl  of 
Leicester's  players  obtained  from  the  Crown,  in  May,  1574,  less 
than  two  months  after  the  Council's  request  for  the  Mayor's  rea- 
sons, the  patent  under  the  Great  Seal  of  England  which  I  have 
already  quoted.1  This,  according  to  the  text  of  the  Privy  Seal 
directing  the  issue  of  the  Great  Seal,  explicitly  authorized  per- 
formances "within  our  City  of  London,"  except  in  "time  of  com- 
mon prayer,  or  in  the  time  of  great  and  common  plague  in  our 
said  City  of  London,"  —  any  act,  statute,  proclamation,  or  com- 
mandment to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  The  copy  of  the 
instrument  preserved  among  Rymer's  unpublished  papers,2 
however,  does  not  contain  the  important  clause  respecting  per- 
formances in  London;  and  it  has  been  suggested  that  this  was 
omitted  from  the  Great  Seal.3  This  theory  seems  improbable. 
Rymer's  copy  contains  at  the  end  the  telltale  "plague  in  our 
said  City  of  London,"  showing  that  the  previous  clause  had 
once  been  in.  Why  it  was  dropped  out  from  this  copy  we  cannot 
tell.  But  surely  it  is  not  likely  that  it  was  omitted  from  the  patent 
actually  issued,  since  the  authorization  to  play  within  the  City 
must  have  been  the  chief  thing  desired  by  the  players  and  the 
chief  point  of  the  granting  of  the  patent.  That  the  authority 
of  a  patent  under  the  Great  Seal  should  be  used  to  override  the 
municipal  government  is  not  at  all  surprising,  in  view  of  what  we 
have  seen  of  such  grants,  some  of  which  were  issued  expressly  to 
supersede  even  Statutes  of  the  Realm.4 

It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  the  Lord  Mayor  acquiesced 
promptly  and  completely  in  the  newly  authorized  performances. 
He  seems  to  have  needed  a  further  reminder.  On  July  22  fol- 
lowing the  Privy  Council  wrote,  requiring  him  to  "admit  the 

1  PP-  33~34-  2  Printed  in  1821  Variorum,  III,  47,  note. 

3  See  Collier,  Introduction  to  Northbrooke's  Treatise,  Shakspere  Society 
Publications,  XIV,  xiii.  No  justification  is  apparent  for  Collier's  statement 
that  the  right  granted  by  this  clause  was  certainly  never  exercised. 

4  See  above,  p.  45. 


156 

comedy  players  to  play  within  the  City  of  London,  and  to  be 
otherwise  favorably  used,"  l  — a  request  which  probably  refers 
to  the  recently  patented  company.  But  performances  could  not 
have  continued  long  during  this  summer,  for  the  plague  in- 
creased and  grew  so  virulent  that  on  October  24  the  Lords  of 
the  Council  refused  to  go  to  the  proposed  feast  of  the  new 
Lord  Mayor,  because  of  the  danger  of  infection.  They  even 
suggested  that  the  feast  ought  not  to  be  given,  but  that  the 
money  intended  therefor  should  be  devoted  to  the  poor.2  One 
wonders  whether  they  took  any  ironical  pleasure  in  adminis- 
tering this  pious  reproof  to  the  puritanical  city  government. 

In  anticipation  of  the  renewal  of  plays  after  the  plague  should 
cease,  the  City  Council,  on  December  6,  1574,  passed  a  long  and 
interesting  ordinance  carefully  and  rigorously  regulating  dra- 
matic performances  in  London.3  If  they  were  to  be  forced  to 
have  plays  in  the  City,  they  evidently  determined  that  the  produc- 
tions should  be  thoroughly  supervised.  Though  the  general 
tone  of  the  phrasing  of  the  act  is  decidedly  Puritan,  as  is  also 
its  concern  for  decency  and  morality,  it  does  not  show  the  abso- 
lute condemnation  of  all  plays  as  sinful  which  the  extreme  Puri- 
tans, and  later  the  city  officials  themselves,  vehemently  urged. 
It  even  admits  that  there  may  be  a  "lawful,  honest  and  comely 
use  of  plays."  Its  preamble  gives  us  an  interesting  picture  of 
some  of  the  conditions  surrounding  the  inn-yard  performances 
of  the  period,  and  a  summary  of  the  chief  arguments  of  the  city 
fathers  against  plays. 

"Whereas  heartofore  sondrye  greate  disorders  and  inconvenyences 
have  beene  found  to  ensewe  to  this  Cittie  by  the  inordynate  hauntynge 
of  greate  multitudes  of  people,  speciallye  youthe,  to  plaves,  enterludes 
and  shewes;  namelye  occasyon  of  frayes  and  quarrelles,  eavell  prac- 
tizes of  incontinencye  in  greate  Innes,  havinge  chambers  and  secrete 
places  adjoyninge  to  their  open  stagies  and  gallyries,  inveyglynge  and 
alleurynge  of  maides,  speciallye  orphanes,  and  good  cityzens  children 
under  age,  to  previe  and  unmete  contractes,  the  publishinge  of  un- 
chaste, uncomelye,  and  unshamefaste  speeches  and  doynges,  with- 

1  Acts,  VIII,  273.  2Ibid.,  303. 

3  Printed  at  length  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  27-31;  and  in  Collier,  English 
Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  208-211,  note. 


157 

drawinge  of  the  Qucnes  Majesties  subjectes  from  dyvyne  service  on 
Soundaiea  &  hollydayes,  al  which  tymes  such  playes  weare  chefelye 

used,  unthriftye  waste  of  the  moneye  of  the  poore  &  fond  persons, 
sondrye  robberies  by  pyckinge  and  cuttinge  of  purses,  utteringe  of 
popular,  busye  and  sedycious  matters,  and  manic  other  corruptions 
of  vouthe,  and  other  enormyties;  besydes  that  allso  soundrye  slaugh- 
ters and  mayhemminges  of  the  Quenes  Subjectes  have  happened  by 
ruines  of  Skaffoldes,  Frames  and  Stagies,  and  by  engynes,  weapons 
and  powder  used  in  plaics.  And  whear  in  tyme  of  Goddes  visitacion 
by  the  plaigue  suche  assemblies  of  the  people  in  thronge  and  presse 
have  benne  verye  daungerous  for  spreadinge  of  Infection." 

The  act  also  cites  the  restraint  of  plays  by  the  Privy  Council 
in  times  of  plague,  and  further  states  that  the  city  officials  fear  lest 
"  vppon  Goddes  mercyfull  wthdrawinge  his  hand  of  syckenes  from 
vs  (\vcU  God  graunte)  the  people,  speciallye  the  meaner  and  moste 
vnrewlye  sorte,  should  wth  sodayne  forgettinge  of  his  visytacion, 
\v'howte  feare  of  goddes  wrathe,  and  wthowte  deowe  respecte  of 
the  good  and  politique  meanes,  that  he  hathe  ordeyned  for  the 
preservacion  of  commen  weales  and  peoples  in  healthe  and  good 
order,  retourne  to  the  vndewe  vse  of  suche  enormyties,  to  the 
greate  offence  of  God,  the  Queenes  maties  commaundements  and 
good  governance." 

In  order  that  all  these  perils  may  be  avoided,  and  "  the  lawfull, 
honest,  and  comelye  vse  of  plaies,  pastymes,  and  recreacions  in 
good  sorte  onelye  permitted,  and  good  provision  hadd  for  the 
saiftie  and  well  orderynge  of  the  people  thear  assemblydd,"  the 
Lord  Mayor  and  "his  bretheren  th'  aldermen,  together  wth  the 
grave  and  discrete  Citizens  in  the  Comen  Councell  assemblyd," 
enact  that  "from  henceforthe  no  playe,  comodye,  tragidie,  en- 
terlude,  nor  publycke  shewe  shalbe  openlye  played  or  shewed 
\vu'in  the  liberties  of  the  Cittie,  whearin  shalbe  vttered  anie 
wourdes,  examples,  or  doynges  of  anie  vnchastitie,  sedicion,  nor 
suche  lyke  vnfytt,  and  vncomelye  matter,  vppon  paine  of  im- 
prisonment by  the  space  of  xiiijten  daies  of  all  persons  offendinge 
in  anie  suche  open  playinge,  or  shewinges,  and  v11.  for  evrie  suche 
offence." 

The  following  explicit  provisions  for  licensing  are  then  laid 
down.  No  innkeeper  or  any  other  person  shall  _al]pw  any  play 
to  be  given  in  his  houseyard  or  other  place  unless\  (i)  the  play_ 


158 

has  been  perused  and  allowed  by  the  persons  appointed  for  that 
purpose  by  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the  Aldermen;  (2)  the  players 
have  been  authorized  by  the  Mayor  and  Aldermen ;  (3)  the  place 
has  been  approved  by  them ;  and  (4)  the  house  owner  has  given 
security  for  the  keeping  of  good  order.  Moreover,  no  perform- 
ances whatsoever  shall  be  given  at  any  times  —  such  as  those  of 
sickness  —  forbidden  by  the  city  authorities ;  or  during  the  hours 
of  Divine  Service  upon  Sundays  and  Holy  Days;  upon  pain  of 
a  fine  of  £5  for  every  offense.  I  All  duly  licensed  housekeepers 
shall  contribute  to  the  poor  and  the  sick  of  the  City;  and  all 
fines  and  forfeitures  shall  be  devoted  to  the  same  purpose.  Per- 
formances in  private  houses,  at  weddings  or  other  festivities, 
where  no  money  is  collected  from  the  audience,  are  exempted 
from  the  provisions  of  this  act,  except  those  "touchinge  the 
publishinge  of  unchaste,  sedycious  and  vnmete  matters,"  —  an 
offense  which  is  under  no  circumstances  to  be  tolerated. 

Though  perhaps  somewhat  stringent,  the  regulations  laid  down 
by  this  act  seem  on  the  whole  very  sensible,  showing  a  due  regard 
for  the  safety  and  well-being  of  the  citizens.  But  the  law,  as 
enforced,  was  apparently  very  irksome  to  the  players.  The 
expense  of  the  required  contributions  to  the  poor,  the  fines,  and 
the  bonds,  must  have  been  considerable ;  and  the  growing  Puri- 
tan feeling  among  the  citizens  probably  made  the  enforcement 
of  the  licensing  regulations  unduly  restrictive  and  oppressive, 
and  the  suppression  of  performances  too  frequent  to  suit  the  taste 
of  the  actors.  It  was  apparently  these  hardships  which  drove 
Burbage  and  others  to  seek  refuge  in  the  Liberties,  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  city  officials,  and  caused  the  erection,  in  1576,  of  the 
first  permanent  playhouse,  the  Theater,  where  Leicester's  com- 
pany performed,  and  almost  immediately  afterward  of  its  neigh- 
bor, the  Curtain. 

It  has  been  customary  for  stage  historians  to  attribute  the 
building  of  these  theaters  in  the  Liberties  to  an  undated  order 
of  the  municipal  government  wholly  prohibiting  all  plays  in  the 
City,  which  has  generally  been  placed  in  the  year  1575.1  But, 
as  Mr.  Chambers  has  shown,2  this  date  was  carelessly  and  in- 

1  It  is  so  dated  by  Collier,  Fleay,  and  Ordish. 

2  Academy,  August  24,  1895. 


159 

accurately  indorsed  on  the  documents  in  Lansdowne  MS.  20 
which  relate  to  this  edict  and  were  apparently  written  soon  after 
its  issue.  They  refer  to  it  as  having  been  separated  by  a  con- 
siderable interval  of  time  from  the  city  ordinance  of  December, 
1 574.  Moreover,  they  themselves,  as  will  be  shown  later,  cannot 
have  been  written  earlier  than  1584,  and  they  seem  to  have  followed 
rather  soon  after  this  order  of  expulsion.  In  view  of  these  facts 
it  seems  probable  that  the  latter  edict  was  not  promulgated  until 
some  years  after  1575.  I  have  tentatively  placed  it  in  1582, 
and  shall  consider  it  at  that  point  in  this  narrative.1 

Indeed,  one  would  not  expect,  in  the  very  next  year,  such  a 
sudden  change  of  policy  and  reversal  of  the  careful  ordinance  of 
December,  1574;  nor  is  the  absolute  prohibition  of  plays  in  the 
City  necessary  to  explain  the  actors'  resort  to  the  Liberties.  It 
is  certain  that,  contrary  to  the  impression  given  by  some  histo- 
rians, plays  in  the  inn  yards  within  London  continued  for  many  j 
years  after  1575.  This  will  appear  as  wre  follow  the  subsequent 
history  of  the  controversy  over  the  city  stage.  The  theaters 
were  not  yet  sufficient  to  accommodate  all  the  companies  per- 
forming ;  nor  were  they  desirable  in  the  winter  months,  when  the 
players  still  wished  to  act  in  the  more  accessible  and  convenient 
inn  yards. 

During  the  years  immediately  following  this  first  stage  of  the 
contest,  the  Puritan  disapproval  of  the  drama  was  finding  ex- 
pression in  violently  denunciatory  sermons  and  pamphlets,  such  , 
as  Northbrooke's  Treatise,  in  1577,  and  Gossan* sSchoole  of  Abuse,  '  «. 
in  1579.  But  the  City  seems  to  have  made,  for  the  present,  no 
further  definite  move  against  the  players,  except,  presumably, 
the  more  or  less  rigid  enforcement  of  the  regulation  of  1574. 
The  Privy  Council,  however,  several  times  took  action  affecting 
the  London  stage.  On  August  1,  1577,  they  ordered  the  sup- 
pression of  all  plays  in  and  about  the  City  until  Michaelmas  — 
September  29  —  because  of  the  danger  of  infection  in  hot 
weather.2  In  the  following  January  they  again  sought  special 
privileges  in  London  for  certain  players,  requesting  the  Lord 
Mayor  to  permit  Drousiano,  the  Italian  comedian,  and  his  com- 
pany, to  play  within  the  City.3    In  the  next  December  (1578), 

'See  below,  pp.  163  ff.  2  Acts,  IX,  388.  3  Ibid.,  X,  144. 


160 

apparently  after  another  outbreak  of  the  plague,  they  ordered  the 
resumption  of  performances  in  and  about  London,  with  proper 
precautions  against  infection;  and  wrote  to  the  Lord  Mayor, 
requiring  him  to  "suffer  the  Children  of  her  Majesty's  Chapel, 
the  servants  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  of  the  Earl  of  Warwick, 
of  the  Earl  of  Leicester,  of  the  Earl  of  Essex,  and  the  Children 
of  Paul's,  and  no  company  else,  to  exercise  playing  within  the 
City."  l  These  companies  are  to  be  allowed,  the  Lords  state, 
because  "they  are  appointed  to  play  this  Christmas  before  her 
Majesty."  The  granting  of  these  exclusive  privileges  is  an  early 
example  of  the  monopoly  allowed  favored  players.  But  the  large 
number  of  companies  here  named  is  in  contrast  to  the  practice 
of  the  later  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign. 

On  March  13,  1579,  we  find  the  first  explicit  statement  of  a 
law  against  performances  in  Lent.  The  Privy  Council  on  that 
day  bade  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the  Justices  of  Middlesex  —  i.e. 
those  with  authority  over  the  Theater  and  the  Curtain  —  sup- 
press all  plays  during  Lent  and  until  after  Easter  week;  and 
commanded  also  that  this  order  should  be  observed  thereafter 
yearly  in  the  Lenten  season.2 

Urged  on  by  the  Puritan  denunciations  of  the  drama  in  general, 
and  of  the  Theater  and  the  Curtain  in  particular,  as  sinks  of 
abomination  and  iniquity,  the  city  authorities  now  resumed,  more 
energetically,  their  war  against  plays.  The  second  and  the  most 
bitter  stage  of  this  contest  lasted  from  1580  to  1584,  —  years  filled 
with  appeals,  arguments,  and  orders  from  Common  Council  and 
Privy  Council,  resulting  in  temporary  victory  for  the  City,  but 
ultimate  defeat. 

Early  in  1580  the  campaign  opened  with  an  attack  on  the 
Theater.  The  Lord  Mayor  seems  to  have  appealed  to  the  Mid- 
dlesex Justices  and  brought  about  the  indictment  of  John  Braynes 
and  James  Burbage  for  causing  unlawful  assemblages  of  people 
at  that  playhouse,  and  thus  provoking  great  affrays,  assaults, 
tumults,  and  other  breaches  of  the  Queen's  peace.3  Probably 
this   indictment  followed  a  particularly  great  disorder  which 

1  Acts,  IX,  435,  436.  2  Ibid.,  XI,  73-74;   and  see  below,  pp.  210-21 1. 

3  See  the  indictment,  quoted  from  the  Middlesex  County  Records,  in  the 
Athenaum,  February  12,  1887. 


161 

occurred  at  the  Theater  on  a  Sunday  in  April  of  that  year,  and 
concerning  which  the  Lord  Mayor  wrote  to  the  Privy  Council 
on  April  12.1  Though  the  playhouse  was  outside  his  jurisdic- 
tion, the  Mayor,  moved  by  the  fact  that  ""those  players  do  make 
assemblies  of  citizens  and  their  families  of  whom  I  have  charge," 
had  started,  he  reported,  to  investigate  the  matter.  He  had 
consulted  with  the  Under-Sheriff  of  Middlesex  and  had  sum- 
moned some  of  the  actors  before  him.  Upon  learning  that  the 
Privy  Council  had  taken  up  the  affair,  however,  he  ceased  to  act. 
But  he  begged  the  Lords  to  consider  "that  the  players  of  plays 
which  are  used  at  the  Theater  and  other  such  places,  and 
tumblers  and  such  like,  are  a  very  superfluous  sort  of  men  and  of 
such  faculty  as  the  laws  have  disallowed,  and  their  exercise  of 
those  plays  is  not  only  a  great  hindrance  to  the  service  of  God, 
who  hath  with  His  mighty  hand  so  lately  admonished  us  of  our 
earnest  repentance,2  but  also  a  great  corruption  of  youth,  with 
unchaste  and  wicked  matters,  the  occasion  of  much  incontinence, 
practices  of  many  frays,  quarrels  and  other  disorders  within  the 
City."  He  therefore  begged  that  order  might  be  taken  to  pre- 
vent such  plays,  not  only  within  the  City,  but  also  in  the 
Liberties.3 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  Theater  was  much  troubled  as  a 
result  of  this  agitation.  Within  a  month  after  the  Mayor's  appeal, 
however,  the  opponents  of  plays  had  obtained  an  ally  in  the 
shape  of  the  plague,  which  caused  the  Privy  Council  in  May  to 
forbid  performances.4  This  order  was  apparently  not  rigorously 
enforced  in  the  Liberties,  for  in  June  the  Lord  Mayor  again 
appealed  to  the  Lords,  reporting  the  steps  taken  in  the  City  to 
stop  the  spread  of  the  disease,  and  requesting  the  aid  of  the  Coun- 
cil "for  the  redress  of  such  things  as  were  found  dangerous  in 
spreading  the  infection  and  otherwise  drawing  God's  wrath  and 
plague  upon  the  City,  such  as  the  erecting  and  frequenting  of 
infamous  houses  out  of  the  liberties  and  jurisdictions  of  the 

1  The  indictment  is  for  causing  an  unlawful  assemblage  on  February  21  and 
other  days  before  and  after  that  date.  It  might  have  been  drawn  as  late  as 
April. 

'  This  apparently  refers  to  the  recent  earthquake  of  April  6. 

s  Remembrancia,  350;   Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  348-349. 

*  Acts,  XII,  15. 

M 


162 

City,  the  drawing  of  the  people  from  the  service  of  God  and 
honest  exercises,  to  unchaste  plays."  1 

Whether  the  Lords  attempted  to  remedy  these  bitter  grievances 
by  more  rigorous  suppression  of  the  theaters,  we  do  not  know.  In 
the  following  summer  the  plague  again  caused  the  prohibition  of 
performances.  On  July  10,  1581,  the  Privy  Council  commanded 
the  Mayor  and  the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  in  order  to  prevent  the 
spread  of  the  disease,  to  permit  no  more  plays  until  the  end  of 
September.2  The  general  measures  for  the  avoidance  of  infec- 
tion, apart  from  the  closing  of  the  playing  places,  the  city  authori- 
ties did  not  carry  out  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Privy  Council. 
In  September  and  again  in  October  the  Lords  administered  to 
the  Mayor  and  the  Aldermen  a  severe  scolding  for  their  negli- 
gence, and  reproached  them  because  the  disease  had  spread  so 
that  the  Queen  had  had  to  remove  to  a  greater  distance  from 
London.3  With  these  reproofs  fresh  in  their  minds  it  must  have 
been  exasperating  to  the  city  officials  to  receive  in  November 
a  request  for  the  allowance  of  what  they  considered  the  most 
dangerous  cause  of  infection,  —  the  assemblages  at  plays.  The 
demand  of  the  Privy  Council  on  November  18,  1581,  was  couched 
in  the  usual  terms.  "  As  the  sickness  was  almost  ceased,  and  not 
likely  to  increase  at  this  time  of  year,  in  order  to  relieve  the  poor 
players,  and  to  encourage  their  being  in  readiness  with  convenient 
matters  for  her  highness's  solace  this  next  Christmas,"  the  Lords 
required  the  Mayor  forthwith  to  "suffer  the  players  to  practise 
such  plays,  in  such  sort,  and  in  the  usual  places,  as  they  had  been 
accustomed,  having  careful  regard  for  the  continuance  of  such 
quiet  order  as  had  been  before  observed."  *  The  Mayor  ap- 
parently did  not  accede  promptly  to  this  request,  and  because 
of  his  opposition  the  players  petitioned  the  Privy  Council  for 
further  aid.  The  Lords  therefore  wrote  again  on  December  3, 
ordering  the  Mayor  to  permit  the  petitioning  companies  —  who 
are  not  named  —  to  perform  in  and  about  the  City,  as  they  had 
been  accustomed  to  do,  in  order  that  they  might  support  their 
families  and  because  they  were  to  perform  before  the  Queen  at 
Christmas.     But,   perhaps  as  a   concession  to  the   municipal 

1  Remembrancia,  330.  '  Ibid.,  331. 

3  Ibid.;    Acts,  XIII,  234.  *  Remembrancia,  350. 


163 

authorities,  the  players  are  to  be  allowed  to  act  only  on  week 
days,  and  never  on  the  Sabbath,  cither  in  the  forenoon  or  in  the 
afternoon.1 

In  this  same  December,  1581,  the  patent  was  issued  which  gave 
to  the  Master  of  the  Revels  such  wide  authority  over  the  stage. 
Possibly  some  inkling  of  the  trouble  which  his  licensing  power 
was  to  cause  reached  the  city  officials,  and  combined  with  their 
indignation  at  the  abuses  of  the  theaters  to  urge  them  to  the 
extreme  measure  they  seem  to  have  taken  about  this  time.  This 
was  the  passage  of  the  act  totally  prohibiting  all  plays  within  the 
City,  which  has  generally  been  dated  1575,  but  which,  as  Mr. 
Chambers  has  pointed  out  and  as  I  have  stated  above,2  almost 
certainly  belongs  in  these  years  of  agitation  between  1580  and 
1583,  and  perhaps  early  in  1582.  The  order  of  expulsion  is  re- 
ferred to  in  a  letter  from  the  municipal  officials  in  15843  as  being 
contained  in  Article  62  of  an  Act  of  the  Common  Council  for  the 
Relief  of  the  Poor.  This  is  clearly  identical  with  Article  62  of 
an  undated  pamphlet  printed  by  Hugh  Singleton  and  entitled 
"Orders  appointed  to  be  executed  in  the  Cittie  of  London  for 
setting  roges  and  idle  persons  to  worke,  and  for  the  releefe  of  the 
poore."  4  The  municipal  letter  of  1584  states  that  this  edict 
preceded  the  Paris  Garden  disaster,  and  it  must  therefore  be  of 
a  date  somewhat  earlier  than  January  13,  1583.  It  was  appar- 
ently as  late  as  1580,  and  probably  a  year  or  two  after  that; 
for  the  city  officials  speak  of  it  as  having  been  separated  from  the 
act  of  December,  1574,  by  a  considerable  period  of  time,  during 
which  the  abuses  of  the  stage  grew  flagrant,  and  there  was  much 
agitation  and  many  denunciatory  sermons.5  Moreover,  Raw- 
lidge's  Monster  Lately  Found  Out,  published  in  1628,  in  an  ac- 
count of  this  controversy  states  that  it  was  soon  after  1580  that  the 
citizens  expelled  the  players  and  "quite  pulled  down  and  sup- 
pressed" the  playhouses  in  the  City.6  During  the  years  1580- 
1582  the  agitation  against  the  stage  was  bitter  and  continuous, 

1  Acts,  XIII,  269.  Possibly  this  is  the  same  letter  as  that  just  mentioned, 
dated  November  18  in  the  city  archives. 

:  pp.  158-159.  3  See  below,  p.  172. 

4  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  212;  Chambers,  in  Acade my,  August  24, 
1895.     The  order  is  sometimes  relerred  to  as  the  "Singleton  order." 

6  See  below,  pp.  172-173.  '  Chambers,  in  Academy,  August  24,  1895. 


164 

and  the  edict  would  fit  appropriately  into  almost  any  part  of  that 
period.  The  early  spring  of  1582  is  perhaps  the  most  probable 
date,  for  at  that  time  the  City  was  suffering  from  the  plague, 
as  the  order  implies,  the  Mayor  was  begging  the  Lords  to  continue 
the  restraint  of  plays,  as  the  last  clause  of  the  edict  suggests,  and 
all  the  other  requirements  seem  to  be  met  by  this  date.  The  order 
is  characteristically  Puritan  in  its  phrasing  and  sentiment,  more 
extreme  than  the  ordinance  of  December,  1574. 

"For  as  much  as  the  playing  of  enterludes,  and  the  resort  to  the 
same,  are  very  daungerous  for  the  infection  of  the  plague,  wherby 
infinite  burdens  and  losses  to  the  Citty  may  increase,  and  are  very 
hurtfull  in  corruption  of  youth  with  incontinence  and  lewdness,  and 
also  great  wasting  both  of  the  time  and  thrift  of  many  poore  people, 
and  great  provoking  of  the  wrath  of  God,  the  ground  of  all  plagues, 
great  withdrawing  of  the  people  from  publique  prayer,  and  from  the 
service  of  God,  and  daily  cried  out  against  by  the  preachers  of  the  word 
of  God;  therefore  it  is  ordered,  that  all  such  enterludes  in  publique 
places,  and  the  resort  to  the  same,  shall  wholy  be  prohibited  as  un- 
godly, and  humble  sute  made  to  the  Lords,  that  lyke  prohibition  be 
in  places  neere  unto  the  Cittie."  l 

Whether  or  no  this  edict  was  actually  promulgated  in  the 
spring  of  1582,  there  was  evidently  some  opposition  to  plays  on 
the  part  of  the  City  at  this  time;  for  the  Privy  Council  again 
came  to  the  aid  of  the  actors.  They  wrote  to  the  Mayor,  re- 
questing him  to  allow  performances  in  London,  since  the  city 
was  free  from  infection.  As  usual,  they  advanced  as  a  reason 
the  Queen's  delight  in  plays  and  the  necessity  of  the  actors' 
having  practice  in  order  that  they  might  the  better  gratify  her 
Majesty.  Perhaps  somewhat  impressed  by  the  municipal  argu- 
ments, they  forbade  plays  not  only  on  the  Sabbath,  but  also  on 
the  ordinary  Holy  Days  until  after  evening  prayer ;  and  they  sug- 
gested that  the  City  should  appoint  a  censor,  in  order  that  those 
dramas  which  contained  "matter  that  might  breed  corruption 
of  manners  and  conversation  among  the  people"  might  be  for- 
bidden.2   Such  a  direct  request  from  the  Privy  Council  the  Mayor 

1  From  the  text  given  by  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  211-212,  quoting 
the  Singleton  pamphlet. 

7  Remcmbrattcia,  351;  Ads,  XIII,  404.  The  first  gives  the  date  as  April  n, 
the  second  as  May  20. 


165 

of  course  dared  not  refuse;  but  in  his  reply  he  again  rehearsed 
the  inconveniences  and  perils  of  theatrical  performances,  and 
begged  that  the  Lords  would  continue  their  restraint  of  them. 
The  suggestion  as  to  a  censor  he  gladly  adopted.  The  plan  of 
restraining  plays  on  Holy  Days  until  after  evening  prayer,  how- 
ever, he  respectfully  condemned,  since  this  would  delay  the  action 
of  the  performances  to  a  very  inconvenient  time  of  night,  espe- 
cially for  servants  and  children.1 

Not  only  did  the  Mayor  and  the  Aldermen  have  to  submit 
to  the  interference  of  the  Privy  Council,  but  they  had  also  to  deal 
with  the  demands  of  individual  noblemen  that  their  servants  might 
have  the  privilege  of  performing  within  the  inn  yards  of  the  City. 
An  example  of  this  occurred  in  the  following  July,  when  the 
Earl  of  Warwick  requested  of  the  Mayor  a  license  for  his  servant, 
John  David,  to  play  "his  provost  prize  in  his  science  and  pro- 
fession of  defence"  at  the  Bull  in  Bishopsgate  Street.2  Appar- 
ently the  Mayor  was  obdurate,  for  three  weeks  later  the  Earl 
again  addressed  him,  expressing  surprise  at  the  prohibition  of 
playing  prizes  by  his  servant,  and  desiring  that  more  favor  might 
be  shown  him.3  To  this  the  Mayor  replied  at  some  length, 
standing  by  his  first  prohibition,  but  endeavoring  to  pacify 
the  offended  nobleman  by  some  concession.  If  the  Earl's  ser- 
vant will  arrange  to  perform  at  the  Theater  or  some  other  open 
place  outside  London,  the  Mayor  will  permit  him,  "with  his 
company,  drums,  and  show,  to  pass  openly  through  the  City, 
being  not  upon  the  Sunday,  which  is  as  much  as  I  may  justify 
in  this  season."  4 

In  the  following  winter  an  accident  occurred  which  vindicated 
some  of  the  assertions  of  the  city  authorities  concerning  the  dan- 
ger of  assemblages  at  shows,  and,  by  arousing  feeling  against 
theaters,  temporarily  gave  the  municipality  great  help  in  its 
warfare  upon  them.  On  Sunday,  January  13,  1583,  a  scaffold 
fell  during  a  performance  at  Paris  Garden,  killing  some  of  the 
spectators  and  injuring  many.  The  Mayor  reported  the  affair 
to  Lord  Treasurer  Burghley  on  January  18,  attributing  the 
disaster  to  the  hand  of  God,  on  account  of  the  abuse  of  the  Sab- 

1  Remembrancia,  351.  2  Ibid.;   Athencrum,  January  23,  1869. 

3  Ibid.  *  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  376. 


166 

bath  Day,  and  requesting  Burghley  to  give  order  for  the  redress 
of  such  contempt  of  God's  service.1  The  Lord  Treasurer 
appears  to  have  been  moved  by  the  Mayor's  report.  He  replied 
that  he  would  bring  the  matter  before  the  Council,  and  get  some 
general  order  passed  prohibiting  such  exhibitions.  In  the  mean- 
time he  recommended  the  Lord  Mayor,  with  the  advice  of  the 
Aldermen,  to  issue  a  command  to  every  ward  for  the  prevention 
of  such  profane  assemblies  on  the  Sabbath  Day.2  Supported  by 
this  pronouncement  of  the  Lord  Treasurer,  and  justified  further 
by  another  outbreak  of  the  plague,  the  city  authorities  now  seem 
to  have  proceeded  to  rigorous  measures.  It  appears  probable 
that  in  this  spring  of  1583  they  actually  suppressed,  for  a  time,  all 
the  city  inn  yards  used  for  performances.3  They  certainly  took 
vigorous  steps  against  them,  as  we  shall  presently  see. 

Had  it  not  been  for  the  royal  favor,  the  state  of  the  players 
would  now  have  been  lamentable.  But  just  at  this  time  a  step 
was  taken  which  added  considerably  to  their  prestige  and  influ- 
ence. This  was  the  formation  of  a  company  directly  in  the 
Queen's  service,  to  be  known  as  Her  Majesty's  Players.  On 
March  10,  1583,  Sir  Francis  Walsingham  summoned  Tilney 
to  Court,  to  select  these  actors.4  As  a  result,  twelve  of  the 
best  were  chosen  from  the  noblemen's  companies,  and,  according 
to  Howes'  account,  written  about  1615,  "were  sworn  the  Queen's 
servants  and  were  allowed  wages  and  liveries  as  grooms  of  the 
chamber."  5  Save  that  they  were  apparently  more  distinguished 
actors,  their  status  seems  to  have  resembled  that  of  the  household 
players  kept  by  the  Queen's  predecessors  and  by  Elizabeth 
herself  during  the  first  decade  or  so  of  her  reign.6  The  new 
company,  as  we  shall  shortly  see,  appears  to  have  had  no  formal 
patent  or  warrant.  Its  position  in  London  did  not  differ  very 
essentially  from  that  of  the  noblemen's  companies  which  served 
the  Queen  at  times,  when  they  were  backed,  as  they  often  were, 

1  Remembrancia,  336.  2  Ibid. 

sSee  Fleay,  London  Stage,  54;  and  the  passage  from  Rawlidge's  Monster 
Lately  Found  Out  (1628),  quoted  in  the  1821  Variorum,  III,  46. 

4  Cunningham,  Revels  Accounts,  186. 

*  See  the  passage  from  Howes'  additions  to  Stow's  Chronicle,  edition  of  1615, 
quoted  in  the  1821  Variorum,  III,  49,  note. 

8  See  above,  pp.  23,  26-27. 


1G7 

by  letters  of  the  royal  Council  requiring  that  they  be  allowed  to 
perform.  But  on  its  travels  the  very  name  of  her  Majesty's 
servants  must  have  brought  it  consideration  and  profit,  since  the 
treatment  accorded  to  players  was  so  generally  dependent  upon 
the  rank  and  influence  of  their  patron.  Even  in  London  the 
Queen's  name  must  often  have  overawed  the  city  officials  and 
protected  the  actors  from  trouble.  Moreover,  the  Privy  Council 
was  even  more  energetic  and  urgent  in  securing  for  Her  Majesty's 
Players  the  privilege  of  performing  than  it  had  been  on  behalf 
of  the  favored  noblemen's  companies.  It  does  not,  however, 
seem  to  me  certain  that,  as  most  historians  assume,  the  new 
company  was  formed  for  the  express  purpose  of  overcoming  the 
opposition  of  the  city  officials.  Such  a  course  was  not  necessary. 
The  Privy  Council  had  at  any  time  the  power  to  get  any  players 
admitted  to  the  City,  and  they  had,  as  we  have  seen,  frequently 
exercised  it.  The  formation  of  the  company  may  have  been  due 
to  some  desire  to  limit  the  number  of  performers  necessary  at 
Court ;  to  a  willingness  to  favor  certain  players;  and,  most 
likely,  to  some  plan  for  the  better  organization  of  court 
performances.  Besides  such  motives  as  these,  the  royal 
officials  may  have  felt  that  they  could  better  supervise  and 
control  the  Queen's  own  servants,  when  the  Lords  secured 
for  them,  for  their  necessary  practice,  playing  privileges  in 
London.  The  favored  noblemen's  companies  were  less  directly 
responsible  to  the  authorities,  and  perhaps  less  easy  to  keep  in 
order. 

It  seems  probable  that,  supported  by  the  power  of  the  Queen's 
name,  her  players  performed  in  London  in  the  spring  of  1583, 
in  spite  of  the  growing  plague  and  the  opposition  of  the  City.1 
But  they  could  not  have  played  long,  for  the  infection  soon 
became  serious,  and  all  performances  in  the  City  must  have  been 
stopped.2  Writing  to  Sir  Francis  Walsingham  on  May  3,  in 
reference  to  the  plague,  the  Mayor  points  out  that  the  restraints 
in  London  are  useless,  unless  like  orders  are  carried  out  in  the 

1  This  may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  the  Council's  request  to  the  Mayor,  in 
the  following  autumn,  that  this  company  be  allowed  to  play  as  heretofore.  Re- 
membrancia,  352. 

2  See  the  Mayor's  letter  to  a  Middlesex  Justice  on  April  27,  1583.  Athenaeum, 
January  23,  1869. 


168 

adjoining  Liberties,  and  he  requests  the  Privy  Council  to  take 
steps  to  redress  this  danger.1  He  again  forcibly  urges  the  evils 
and  demoralization  caused  by  such  performances,  and  the 
disreputable  classes  who  frequent  them.  "Among  other  we 
finde  one  very  great  and  dangerous  inconvenience,  the  assemblie 
of  people  to  playes,  bearebayting,  fencers  and  prophane  spec- 
tacles at  the  Theatre  and  Curtaine  and  other  like  places,  to 
which  doe  resorte  great  multitudes  of  the  basist  sort  of  people 
.  .  .  and  which  be  otherwise  perilous  for  contagion,  biside  the 
withdrawing  from  Gods  service,  the  peril  of  ruines  of  so  weake 
byldinges  and  the  avancement  of  incontinencie  and  most  un- 
godly confederacies."  2 

The  severity  of  the  plague  seems  to  have  prevented  perform- 
ances in  the  summer  of  1583;  but  as  the  winter  drew  on  the 
Privy  Council  wrote,  on  November  26,  to  the  Lord  Mayor  on 
behalf  of  the  new  company.  As  the  infection  within  the  city 
had  ceased,  they  desired  that  "Her  Majesty's  players  might  be 
suffered  to  play  as  heretofore,  more  especially  as  they  were 
shortly  to  present  some  of  their  doings  before  her."  3  However 
much  the  municipality  might  resent  this  action,  the  officials 
dared  not  refuse  such  a  direct  command  from  the  Crown. 
They  relaxed  their  prohibition  and  allowed  the  players  within 
the  City;  but  with  certain  restrictions  which  caused  dissatis- 
faction. A  few  days  later  —  on  December  1  —  Sir  Francis 
Walsingham  wrote  to  the  Mayor  in  the  name  of  the  Privy 
Council,  reiterating  the  request  of  November  26.  "With  re- 
gard to  the  letter  of  the  Council  on  behalf  of  her  Majesty's 
players,  which  the  Lord  Mayor  had  interpreted  to  extend 
only  to  holidays,  and  not  to  other  week-days,  the  Council,  con- 
sidering that  without  frequent  exercise  of  such  plays  as  were 
to  be  presented  before  her  Majesty  her  servants  could  not  con- 
veniently satisfy  her  recreation  and  their  own  duty,  desired  that 
they  should  be  licensed  to  perform  upon  week-days  and  work- 
days, at  convenient  times,  between  this  and  Shrovetide,  Sundays 
only  excepted."  4  Reluctant  though  the  City  was,  it  appar- 
ently had  to  submit.     In  spite  of  the  municipal  prohibition 

1  Remembrancia,  337.  3  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  352. 

3  Remembrancia,  352.  *  Ibid. 


169 

of  plays  the  Queen's  company  performed  within  the  Mayor's 
jurisdiction  in  the  winter  of  1583,  and,  fortified  with  this  prac- 
tice, appeared  at  Court  during  the  Christmas  festivities  of  that 
year.1 

In  the  following  summer,  however,  the  tables  were  turned, 
and  the  City  gained  a  .  temporary  victory.  Fleetwood,  the 
Recorder  of  London,  was  in  the  habit  of  writing  to  Lord  Burgh- 
ley  concerning  events  in  the  city,  and  our  knowledge  of  this 
affair  comes  from  one  of  these  letters,  written  in  June,  1584. 
According  to  his  account,  the  Lord  Mayor  sent  to  the  Court  two 
Aldermen,  with  a  request  for  the  suppressing  and  pulling  down 
of  the  Theater  and  the  Curtain.  Presumably  the  municipal 
officials  had  already  stopped  all  performances  within  London. 
The  royal  government  was  at  this  time  apparently  anxious  to 
conciliate  the  City,  for  all  the  Lords  acceded  to  the  request, 
except  the  Lord  Chamberlain  and  the  Vice-Chamberlain,  — 
the  natural  friends  and  protectors  of  the  players.  "But,"  says 
Fleetwood,  "we  obtained  a  letter  to  suppress  them  all."  On 
the  same  night  the  Recorder  summoned  before  him  the  Queen's 
company  and  Lord  Arundel's,  who  were  then  performing;  and 
they  all  obeyed  the  Lords'  letters.  But  when  he  sought  to 
"bind"  the  "owner  of  the  Theater"  to  obedience,  the  latter 
proved  more  obdurate.  Fleetwood's  account  illustrates  in  an 
amusing  manner  the  difficulty  experienced  by  the  city  officials 
in  disciplining  noblemen's  players,  who,  relying  upon  the  pro- 
tection of  their  patron,  were  apt  to  prove  insolent  and  disobedient. 
"He  sent  me  word,"  writes  the  Recorder,  "that  he  was  my 
Lord  of  Hunsdens  man  and  that  he  wold  not  comme  at  me,  but 
he  wold  in  the  mornyng  ride  to  my  Lord.  Then  I  sent  the 
under-shereff  for  hym,  and  he  browght  hym  to  me,  and,  at  his 
commyng,  he  showtted  me  owt  very  justice;  and  in  the  end  I 
shewed  hym  my  Lord  his  masters  hand,  and  then  he  was  more 
quiet;  but,  to  die  for  it,  he  wold  not  be  bound.  And  then  I 
mynding  to  send  hym  to  prison,  he  made  sute  that  he  might  be 
bounde  to  appere  at  the  oier  and  determiner,  the  which  is  to- 
morowe,  where  he  said  that  he  was  suer  the  court  wold  not  bynd 
hym,  being  a  counselers  man;    and  so  I  have  graunted  his 

1  See  Chambers,  in  Modern  Language  Review,  II,  1  (October,  1906). 


170 
request,  where  he  shal  be  sure  to  be  bounde,  or  els  lyke  to  do 


worse."  1 


The  reasons  for  this  action  of  the  Lords  in  suppressing  the 
theaters,  and  the  results  of  it,  are  not  clear.  Apparently  all  per- 
formances in  the  City  and  the  Liberties  were  stopped  for  a 
time ;  but  the  Theater  and  the  Curtain  survived  unscathed  this 
order  for  their  destruction  —  if  such  it  was  —  as  they  did  sub- 
sequent similar  edicts. 

During  this  summer  the  players  seem  to  have  submitted  to 
exclusion  from  London.  But  as  the  season  for  traveling  and  for 
performances  in  the  outer  suburbs  ended  and  winter  drew  on, 
the  Queen's  company  made  another  attempt  to  get  admission  into 
the  City.  With  this  object,  they  petitioned  the  Privy  Council  as 
follows,  adducing  the  usual  arguments  to  support  their  request : 

"In  most  humble  manner  beseche  yor  Lis.  yor  dutifull  and  daylie 
Orators  the  Queenes  Matie8  poore  Players.  Whereas  the  tyme  of 
our  service  draweth  verie  neere,  so  that  of  necessitie  wee  must  needes 
have  exercise  to  enable  us  the  better  for  the  same,  and  also  for  our 
better  helpe  and  relief  in  our  poore  lyvinge,  the  ceason  of  the  yere 
beynge  past  to  playe  att  anye  of  the  houses  wthout  the  Cittye  of  Lon- 
don as  in  our  articles  annexed  to  this  our  Supplicacion  maye  more 
att  large  appeere  unto  yor  Lis.  Our  most  humble  peticion  ys,  thatt 
yt  maye  please  yor  Lis.  to  vowchsaffe  the  readinge  of  these  few  Ar- 
ticles, and  in  tender  considerasion  of  the  matters  therein  mentioned, 
contayninge  the  verie  staye  and  good  state  of  our  lyvinge,  to  graunt 
vnto  us  the  confirmacion  of  the  same,  or  of  as  many,  or  as  much  of 
them  as  shalbe  to  yor  honors  good  lykinge.  And  therwthall  yor  Lis. 
favorable  letters  unto  the  L.  Mayor  of  London  to  p'mitt  us  to  exercise 
wthin  the  Cittye,  accordinge  to  the  Articles;  and  also  thatt  the  said 
l'res  maye  contayne  some  order  to  the  Justices  of  Midd'x,  as  in  the 
same  ys  mentioned,  wherebie  as  wee  shall  cease  the  continewall 
troublinge  of  yor  Lis.  for  yor  often  l'res  in  the  p' misses,  so  shall  wee 
daylie  be  bownden  to  praye  for  the  prosperous  preservation  of  yor 
Lis.  in  honor,  helth,  and  happines  long  to  continew. 

"  Yor  LI"  most  humblie  bownden 
and  daylie  Orators, 

her  Maties  poor  Players."  2 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  377-378.  This  letter  is  in  part  hard  to  under- 
stand. The  text  given  by  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  252-253,  differs 
materially  from  that  here  quoted. 

a  From  the  text  printed  by  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  31-32,  from  Lansdowne 
MS.  20.     It  is  also  printed  by  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  212-213. 


171 

This  petition,  with  the  subsequent  correspondence,  has 
usually  been  dated  1575,  on  account  of  the  careless  indorse- 
ment of  that  date  upon  the  manuscripts.-  But,  as  Mr.  Chambers 
has  suggested,1  it  must  be  at  least  as  late  as  1583.  In  the  first 
place,  the  reply  of  the  City  to  it  contains  a  reference  to  the  Paris 
Garden  disaster  of  January  13,  1583.  Most  striking  of  all,  the 
petitioners  sign  themselves  the  Queen's  Majesty's  Players,  and 
the  city  authorities  also  refer  to  them  by  this  title.  No  actors 
are  thus  designated  in  the  other  documents  of  this  period  except 
the  Queen's  company  organized  in  March,  1583.  The  use  of 
the  title  somewhat  puzzled  the  historians  who  dated  this  corre- 
spondence in  1575.  Collier  suggested  rather  doubtfully  that  it 
referred  to  the  Earl  of  Leicester's  company ; 2  but  these  players 
are  nowhere  so  designated.  The  petition  must,  then,  be  later 
than  March,  1583. 

In  their  report  on  the  request  the  municipal  officials  refer 
to  this  company  as  having  performed  in  the  city  "last  year."  3 
Therefore  the  petition  and  the  ensuing  correspondence  must  be 
as  late  as  1584.  The  petition  is  obviously  written  in  the  autumn 
or  the  beginning  of  winter,  and  the  players  desire  to  prepare  for 
their  service  at  Court,  —  probably  at  the  Christmas  festivities, 
as  in  the  winter  of  1583.  In  view  of  all  these  facts,  the  most 
probable  date  for  the  occurrence  is  the  latter  part  of  November, 
1584.4 

The  appeal  of  the  Queen's  players  was  evidently  for  permis- 
sion to  act  again  in  the  inn  yards  of  the  City,  and  also,  as  appears 
by  their  request  for  letters  to  the  Middlesex  Justices,  at  the 
Theater  or  the  Curtain.  The  "Articles"  which  they  say  they 
have  annexed  to  their  petition  have  disappeared ;  but  they  evi- 
dently dealt  with  the  regulations  under  which  the  players  thought 
their    performances    should    be   allowed,  —  concerning    hours, 

1  Academy,  August  24,  1895. 

1  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  220.  s  See  below,  pp.  173-174. 

*  Additional  evidence  in  favor  of  the  later  date,  as  against  1575,  may  be 
adduced  from  the  Council  Register.  No  record  of  this  petition,  —  though  others 
are  noted,  —  nor  of  any  action  on  the  request,  appears  in  1575.  The  Register 
is  missing  from  June  26,  1582,  to  February  19,  1586.  {Acts,  XIII,  xxxvi.) 
The  affair  therefore  probably  occurred  within  this  period. 

Strype,  in  his  edition  of  Stow's  Survey,  rightly  dates  the  petition  after  the  Paris 
Garden  disaster.     See  the  passage  quoted  in  1821  Variorum,  III,  49-50,  note. 


172 

days,  plague  time,  etc., — and  discussed  the  municipal  ordi- 
nances affecting  the  stage.  In  harmony  with  the  consideration 
shown  to  the  City  the  preceding  summer,  the  Privy  Council,  before 
granting  the  players'  request,  seems  to  have  sent  the  petition 
and  the  articles  to  the  London  authorities,  and  to  have  asked  for 
their  opinion  on  the  matter.  In  the  same  manuscript  in  the 
Lansdowne  collection  which  contains  the  petition  there  are  two 
documents  which  are  evidently  the  reply  of  the  City.  The  first 
is  a  letter  disputing  the  players'  assertions  concerning  the  muni- 
cipal ordinances  regulating  the  drama,  and  stating  that  the 
writer  is  sending,  for  the  better  information  of  the  Lords,  copies 
of  the  two  acts  in  question,  —  that  of  December,  1574,1  and  the 
order  of  expulsion  which  we  have  conjecturally  dated  1582.2 
The  letter  also  rehearses  briefly  the  history  of  this  legislation. 

"It  may  please  your  good  Lp. 

"  The  orders  in  London  whereunto  the  players  referr  them  are  mis- 
conceaued,  as  may  appeare  by  the  two  actes  of  com'on  Counsell 
which  I  send  yow  w'th  note  (ft^*  directing  to  the  place. 

"The  first  of  these  actes  of  Comon  counsell  was  made  in  the  mar- 
altie  of  Hawes  XVII°  Regine,  and  sheweth  a  maner  how  plaies  were 
to  be  tollerated  and  vsed,  although  it  were  rather  wished  that  they 
were  wholly  discontinued  for  the  causes  appearing  in  the  preamble; 
w'ch  is  for  that  reason  somewhat  the  longer. 

"  Where  the  players  reporte  the  order  to  be  that  they  shold  not  playe 
till  after  seruice  time:  the  boke  is  otherwise;  for  it  is  that  they  shal 
not  onely  not  play  in  seruice  time;  but  also  shal  not  receue  any  in 
seruice  time  to  se  the  same:  for  thoughe  they  did  forbeare  begining 
to  play  till  seruice  were  done,  yet  all  the  time  of  seruice  they  did  take 
in  people,  w'ch  was  the  great  mischef  in  withdrawing  the  people 
from  seruice. 

"Afterward  when  these  orders  were  not  obserued,  and  the  lewd 
maters  of  playes  encreasced  and  in  the  haunt  vnto  them  were  found 
many  dangers,  bothe  for  religion,  state,  honestie  of  manners,  onthrifti- 
nesse  of  the  poore,  and  danger  of  infection  &c.  and  the  preachers 
dayly  cryeng  against  the  L.  Maior  and  his  bretheren,  in  an  Act  of 
Com'on  Counsel  for  releafe  of  the  poore  w'ch  I  send  yow  printed,  in 
the  Article  62  the  last  leafe;  is  enacted  as  there  appeareth,  by  w'ch 
there  are  no  enterludes  allowed  in  London  in  open  spectacle  but  in 
priuate  howses  onely  at  marriages  or  such  like,  w'ch  may  suffise,  and 
sute  is  apointed  to  be  made  that  they  may  be  likewise  banished  in 
places  adioyning. 

1  See  above,  p.  156.  'See  above,  p.  164. 


173 

"Since  that  time  and  namely  vpon  the  mine  at  Parise  garden,  sute 
was  made  to  my  S'rs  to  banishe  playes  wholly  in  the  places  ncre 
London,  according  to  the  said  lawe,  letters  were  obtained  from  my 
S'rs  to  banishe  them  on  the  sabbat  daies."-1 

The  other  document  on  the  city  side  is  a  vigorous  and  inter- 
est ing  report  which  takes  up  point  by  point  all  the  contentions 
and  proposals  made  by  the  players  in  their  petition  and  articles.2 
To  the  argument  of  the  necessity  of  practice  for  the  performances 
before  the  Queen,  the  municipal  authorities  retort  that  it  is  not 
fitting  to  present  before  her  Majesty  such  plays  as  have  been 
"commonly  played  in  open  stages  before  all  the  basest  assem- 
blies in  London  and  Middlesex";  but  that  the  players  ought 
to  "  exercise  "  only  in  private  houses.  As  for  the  actors'  conten- 
tion that  they  must  play  in  order  to  earn  their  living,  the  City 
replies  by  asserting  that  no  one  should  practise  such  a  profession, 
but  that  plays  should  be  presented  by  way  of  recreation  by  men 
with  other  means  of  subsistence,  —  an  apparent  reference  to 
the  custom  of  guild  plays.  The  report  of  the  municipal  authori- 
ties on  the  regulations  proposed  by  the  actors  is  summed  up 
in  the  "Remedies"  quoted  below.  A  few  extracts,  however, 
are  interesting  enough  to  be  cited  at  length.  The  players  had 
evidently  suggested  that  performances  should  be  allowed  when- 
ever the  deaths  from  the  plague  were  under  fifty  a  week.  To 
this  the  City  retorts  first,  rather  epigrammatically,  that  "to 
play  in  plagetime  is  to  increase  the  plage  by  infection :  to  play 
out  of  plagetime  is  to  draw  the  plage  by  offendinge  of  God  vpon 
occasion  of  such  playes."  But  if  performances  must  be  toler- 
rated  in  seasons  of  infection,  the  City  thinks  some  better  rule 
could  be  found  than  that  proposed  by  the  actors.  "It  is  an 
vncharitable  demaund  against  the  safetie  of  the  Quenes  subiects, 
and  per  consequens  of  her  person,  for  the  gaine  of  a  few,  whoe 
if  they  were  not  her  Matie8  servaunts  should  by  their  profession 
be  rogues,  to  esteme  fefty  a  weke  so  small  a  number  as  to  be 
cause  of  tolerating  the  adventure  of  infection."  3    The  granting 

1  From  a  transcript  of  Lansdowne  MS.  20,  no.  11.     The  letter  is  not  signed. 

2  Printed  in  full  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  214  ff.     There  is  a 
summary  in  Fleay,  London  Stage,  46-47. 

3  Collier,  op.  cit.,  215.     For  a  further  account  of  the  plague  rule  proposed  by 
the  City  see  below,  p.  212. 


174 

of  permission  to  the  Queen's  company  only,  they  finally  assert, 
is  "lesse  evil  than  to  graunt  moe";  but  they  earnestly  request 
the  Lords  to  specify,  in  their  letters  or  warrants,  the  number 
and  the  names  of  the  Queen's  players,  since  "last  year,  when 
such  toleration  was  of  the  Quenes  players  only,  all  the  places  of 
playeng  were  filled  with  men  calling  themselves  the  Queenes 
players."  The  company  had  evidently  had  no  regular  patent 
or  license. 

As  the  players  had  proposed  certain  regulations,  so  the  city 
authorities,  in  their  turn,  apparently  drew  up  the  rules  which 
they  thought  should  govern  performances,  —  if  plays  must  be 
tolerated  at  all.  These  are  entitled  "The  Remedies,"  and  are 
included  in  the  same  Lansdowne  MS.  with  the  other  documents 
just  cited. 

"That  they  hold  them  content  with  playeng  in  private  houses  at 
weddings,  &c.  without  publike  assemblies. 

"If  more  be  thought  good  to  be  tolerated,  that  then  they  be  re- 
strained to  the  orders  in  the  act  of  common  Counsel,  tempore  Hawes.1 

"That  they  play  not  openly  till  the  whole  death  in  London  haue 
ben  by  xx  daies  vnder  50  a  weke,  nor  longer  than  it  shal  so  continue.2 

"That  no  playes  be  on  the  Sabbat. 

"That  no  playeng  be  on  holydaies,  but  after  evening  prayer,  nor 
any  received  into  the  auditorie  till  after  evening  prayer. 

"That  no  playeng  be  in  the  dark,  nor  continue  any  such  time  but 
as  any  of  the  auditorie  may  returne  to  their  dwellings  in  London  before 
Sonne  set,  or  at  least  before  it  be  dark. 

"That  the  Quenes  players  only  be  tolerated,  and  of  them  their  num- 
ber, and  certaine  names,  to  be  notified  in  your  Llp*  lettres  to  the  L. 
Maior  and  to  the  Justices  of  Midd'x  and  Surrey.  And  those  her 
players  not  to  divide  themselves  into  several  companies. 

"That  for  breaking  any  of  these  orders  their  toleration  cease."  3 

With  this  communication  from  the  city  authorities,  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  1 580-1 584  controversy  comes  to  an  end.  What 
action  the  Privy  Council  took  upon  these  "Remedies"  does  not 
appear.     But  it  is  probable  that  some  compromise  measure 

1  That  is,  the  act  of  December,  1574,  considered  above,  pp.  156  ft. 

2  That  is,  the  deaths  from  all  causes,  not  from  the  plague  alone,  as  the  players 
had  apparently  suggested. 

3  From  the  text  given  by  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  217. 


175 

was  adopted,  including  some  of  the  municipal  rules.  Evi- 
dently the  long  struggle  of  the  City  did  not  avail  to  keep  plays, 
entirely  out  of  London.  Performances  continued  in  the  Lib- 
erties, and  even  —  at  least  by  the  Queen's  company,  and  later 
by  others  as  well  —  in  the  inn  yards  of  the  City.  The  result 
must  therefore  have  been  bitterly  unsatisfactory  to  the  Puritans, 
who  had  pleaded  so  vigorously  for  the  complete  banishment  of 
actors  from  all  the  neighborhood  of  London.  But  the  earnest 
arguments  of  the  municipal  officials  no  doubt  caused  the  enact- 
ment of  restrictive  measures  more  rigid  than  the  Privy  Council 
would  otherwise  have  required. 

The  most  bitter  stage  of  the  City's  warfare  on  the  drama  was 
now  over.  Between  1584  and  1592  there  seems  to  have  been 
at  least  a  partial  cessation  of  the  struggle.  During  the  five 
years  immediately  following  the  dispute  that  we  have  just  been 
tracing,  there  is  little  of  importance  to  note  in  the  regulation  of 
the  London  stage,  except  a  few  orders  issued  by  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil. These  indicate  that  performances  were  continuing  in  and 
about  London.  In  May,  1586,  the  danger  from  the  plague 
grew  serious  enough  to  warrant  the  Lord  Mayor  in  requesting 
the  suppression  of  plays.  The  Lords  accordingly  prohibited  per- 
formances in  London,  at  the  Theater,  and  at  places  about 
Newington.1  A  year  later  there  seems  to  have  been  again 
danger  of  infection  in  the  hot  season.  Because  of  this,  and  also 
of  some  "outrages  and  disorders"  lately  committed  at  playing 
places  in  London  and  the  suburbs,  the  Privy  Council,  on  May  7, 
1587,  ordered  the  Mayor,  the  Justices  of  Surrey,  and  the  Master 
of  the  Rolls 2  to  permit  no  more  plays  until  after  Bartholomew 
tide.3  There  had  been  for  some  time  —  at  least  since  the  Paris 
Garden  disaster  —  a  general  rule  against  performances  on  Sun- 
day; but  it  was  irregularly  enforced.  On  October  29,  1587, 
some  inhabitants  of  Southwark  complained  to  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil of  the  breach  of  this  law,  especially  in  the  Liberty  of  the 
Clink,  and  the  Lords  ordered  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  to  be 
more  strict  in  preventing  such  offenses.4 

For  the  next  two  years  nothing  of  especial  interest  seems  to 

1  Acts,  XIV,  99,  102.  2  See  above,  p.  54. 

3  Acts,  XV,  70.  4  Ibid.,  271. 


176 

have  occurred  in  our  department  of  stage  history.  Possibly  the 
nation  was  too  much  absorbed  in  the  conflict  with  the  Armada 
to  devote  much  attention  to  warfare  over  the  theaters.  In  1589 
came  the  Martin  Marprelate  controversy,  the  trouble  with  the 
censorship  and  the  temporary  suppression  of  plays,  which  we 
have  already  discussed.1  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  London 
administration  there  are  a  few  points  to  add  to  the  history  of 
this  affair.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  order  for  the  suppression 
of  plays  was  not  sent  to  the  Lord  Mayor,  as  usual.  In  his  letter 
to  Lord  Burghley,  already  quoted,  he  states,  "Where  by  a  Pre 
of  your  Lordships,  directed  to  Mr.  Yonge,  it  appered  unto  me 
that  it  was  your  ho:  pleasure  that  I  sholde  geve  order  for  the 
staie  of  all  playes  within  the  cittie,  in  that  Mr.  Tilney  did  utterly 
mislike  the  same."  2  The  Mr.  Yonge  here  mentioned  seems 
to  have  been  the  Richard  Yonge  who  was  one  of  the  Middlesex 
Justices  having  authority  over  the  Theater,  the  Curtain,  and 
adjoining  districts.3  Why  the  Privy  Council  did  not,  as  usual, 
communicate  directly  with  the  Mayor  is  not  apparent.  Per- 
haps they  merely  wished  to  stop  the  plays  at  the  two  theaters, 
and  the  Mayor,  hearing  of  this,  seized  the  opportunity  to  sup- 
press all  performances  in  the  City  as  well. 

The  Mayor's  account  of  the  difficulty  he  had  in  stopping  the 
plays  in  London  is  another  illustration  of  the  mutinous  and  dis- 
respectful attitude  towards  the  municipal  authorities  some- 
times shown  by  the  players,  confident,  as  they  seem  to  have  been, 
of  the  powerful  influence  and  protection  of  their  patrons.  Two 
companies  were  apparently  performing  in  the  inn  yards  of  the 
City  at  the  time,  —  the  Lord  Admiral's  and  Lord  Strange's,  — 
whom  the  Mayor  summoned  before  him  and,  as  he  says,  "to 
whome  I  speciallie  gave  in  charge,  and  required  them  in  her 
Majestys  name,  to  forbere  playinge  untill  further  order  might  be 
geven  for  theire  allowance  in  that  respect :  Whereupon  the 
Lord  Admeralls  players  very  dutifullie  obeyed ;  but  the  others, 
in  very  contemptuous  manner  departing  from  me,  wente  to  the 
Crosse  Keys,  and  played  that  afternoone  to  the  greate  offence 

1  See  above,  pp.  91-92.  J  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  34. 

8  See  the  order  of  June  23,  1592,  addressed  to  him  and  to  other  Middlesex 
Justices.     Acts,  XXII,  549. 


177 

of  the  better  sortc,  that  knew  they  were  prohibited  by  order 
from  your  Lordship.  Which  as  I  might  not  suffer,  so  I  sent  for 
the  said  contemptuous  persons,  who  havcing  no  reason  to  al- 
leadgc  for  theire  contempte,  I  could  do  no  less  but  this  eveninge 
committ  tow  of  them  to  one  of  the  Compters."  ' 

The  agitation  of  the  Martinist  controversy  resulted,  as  we 
have  seen,  in  the  appointment  of  a  censorship  commission  on 
which  the  City  was  represented;  but  really  marked  the  end  of 
municipal  licensing  and  the  rise  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels  to 
censoring  power. 

A  rather  quaint  order  was  issued  by  the  Lords  on  July  25, 
1591,  showing  them  as  apparently  for  once  more  zealous  against 
Sabbath  breaking  than  the  Lord  Mayor  himself,  and  coupling 
two  somewhat  incongruous  requests.  They  have  noticed,  they 
inform  the  Mayor,  some  neglect  of  the  order  against  playing  on 
the  Sabbath  Day;  and  have  also  observed  that  performances  on 
Thursdays  are  a  "greate  hurte  and  destruction  of  the  game  of 
beare  baytinge  and  lyke  pastymes,  which  are  mayntayned  for 
her  Majestys  pleasure  yf  occacion  require."  On  these  two  days, 
therefore,  they  direct  that  no  plays  be  allowed,  for  the  greater 
reverence  of  God  and  the  encouragement  of  the  Queen's  bear 
baiters.2 

1  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  34-35.  3  Acts,  XXI,  324-325. 


CHAPTER  V 

Local  Regulations  in  London 

1592-1642 

The  last  decade  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  years  during 
which  Shakspere  was  rising  to  preeminence,  is  of  much  interest 
in  the  history  of  stage  regulations.  As  viewed  through  the 
official  documents,  it  presents  a  course  of  events  somewhat 
different  from  the  decade  of  the  eighties.  One  is  impressed 
particularly  by  the  great  disorders  at  the  theaters.  London  dur- 
ing these  years  was  apparently  especially  overrun  by  tramps  and 
riotous  persons.  In  1595  and  again  in  1598,  because  of  the  large 
number  of  rogues  and  vagabonds  in  the  City  and  the  suburbs, 
the  Privy  Council  found  it  necessary  to  appoint  a  Provost  Mar- 
shal with  power  over  London  and  the  adjoining  counties.1 
During  the  period  the  theaters  seem  to  have  been  undoubtedly 
one  of  the  chief  gathering  points  for  these  vagabonds,  for  various 
sorts  of  cutpurses  and  rascals,  and  for  the  reckless  apprentices 
who  were  thus  lured  from  their  work  into  evil  ways.  The  city 
authorities  realized  vividly  all  these  troubles.  It  is  notable  that 
throughout  the  decade  this  is  the  argument  against  plays  which 
the  municipality  chiefly  emphasizes,  —  that  they  serve  as  the 
rendezvous  for  rascals,  nests  of  crime,  and  places  of  demoraliza- 
tion for  the  apprentices.  The  Puritan  contention  that  theatrical 
performances  are  in  themselves  sinful,  and  draw  down  the  wrath 
of  God,  is  scarcely  brought  forward,  —  in  contrast  to  the  course 
of  the  argument  during  the  years  1 580-1 584.  The  Privy  Coun- 
cil, on  its  side,  seems  at  times  to  have  acquired  something  of  the 
Puritan  attitude.     In  1593,  for  instance,  it  forbids  plays  at  the 

1  Acts,  XXIX,  132-133,  140,  206. 
178 


179 

universities,  because  they  may  corrupt  the  students  and  allure 
them  to  "lewdness  and  vicious  manners."  '  The  danger  of  fo- 
menting crime  and  disorder  that  arose  from  the  London  theaters, 
the  Lords  frankly  recognized  and  tried  to  guard  against.  Though 
they  continued  to  grant  privileges  to  the  few  favored  companies 
needed  for  the  Queen's  amusement,  they  passed  at  times  ex- 
tremely severe  orders  against  the  other  theaters, — measures 
severe  in  their  conception,  at  least,  but  never  rigorously  carried 
out. 

As  we  have  seen  in  a  preceding  chapter,  by  the  year  1592  the 
Master  of  the  Revels  had  to  a  considerable  extent  established  his 
licensing  power,  and  had  authorized  playing  places  in  and  about 
the  City.  In  despair  of  securing;  from  the  Privy  Council  pro- 
tection against  this  crown  officer,Jtne  Aldermen  appealed  for  aid 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and,  though  Whitgift  was  by 
no  means  of  Puritan  leanings,  were  successful  in  obtaining  his 
intercession.2  Their  appeal,  written  on  February  25,  1592, 
contains  a  vigorous  recital  of  the  dangers  of  the  theaters,  —  inform- 
ing the  Archbishop  of  "the  daily  disorderly  exercise  of  a  number 
of  players  and  playing  houses  erected  within  the  City,  whereby 
the  youths  of  the  City  were  greatly  corrupted,  and  their  manners 
infected  with  many  evils  and  ungodly  qualities,  by  reasonof  the 
wanton  and  profane  devices  represented  on  the  stages^  The 
apprentices  and  servants  were  withdrawn  from  their  work,  to 
the  great  hindrance  of  the  trades  and  traders  of  the  City,  and  the 
propagation  of  religion.  Besides,  to  these  places  resorted  the 
light  and  lewd  disposed  persons,  as  harlots,  cutpurses,  cozeners, 
pilferers,  etc.,  who,  under  colour  of  hearing  plays,  devised  divers 
evil  and  ungodly  matches,  confederacies  and  conspiracies,  which 
could  not  be  prevented."  3 

In  the  following  summer  danger  of  serious  riots  drove  the 
Privy  Council  to  recognize  the  justice  of  some  of  the  Aldermen's 
accusations  against  the  theaters.  On  May  30,  1592,  the  Lord 
Mayor  reported  to  the  Lord  Treasurer  a  serious  tumult  and  dis- 
order in  Southwark.4  Fearing  similar  and  graver  rioting  on 
Midsummer  Night,  the  Lords  issued,  on  June  23,  an  edict  pro- 

1  Acts,  XXIV,  427-428.  :  See  above,  p.  55-56. 

3  Heme ■mbrancia,  352.  *  Athenaum,  January  23,  1869. 


180 

viding  for  rigid  precautions  against  disorder  in  and  about  Lon- 
don on  that  occasion.  The  glimpse  of  armed  householders  on 
watch  against  mutinous  apprentices  which  this  affords,  is  an 
interesting  illustration  of  the  rather  primitive  methods  of  keeping 
order  practised  in  Elizabethan  London;  and  the  command  for 
the  closing  of  the  playing  places  shows  a  clear  recognition  by  the 
Privy  Council  of  the  danger  to  which  these  resorts  gave  rise. 
The  following  extract  is  from  the  form  of  order  sent  to  the 
Middlesex  Justices. 

"Whereas  her  Majestie  is  informed  that  certaine  apprentyces  and 
other  idle  people  theire  adherentes  that  were  authors  and  partakers 
of  the  late  mutynous  and  foule  disorder  in  Southwarke  in  moste  out- 
rageous and  tumultuous  sorte,  have  a  further  purpose  and  meaninge 
on  Midsommer  eveninge  or  Midsommer  nighte  or  about  that  tyme 
to  renewe  theire  lewd  assemblye  togeather  by  cullour  of  the  tyme 
for  some  bad  and  mischeivous  intencion,  to  the  disturbance  and 
breache  of  her  Majesty's  Peace,  and  comyttinge  some  outrage.  To 
prevente  in  tyme  theis  wicked  and  mischeivous  purposes  wee  have 
given  straighte  order  to  the  Maiour  of  London  for  the  cittye  and  the 
liberties  thereunto  belonginge  and  to  all  other  places  neere  to  the  same 
to  have  regarde  hereunto,  and  so  likewyse  wee  are  in  her  Majesty's 
name  straightlie  to  chardge  and  comaunde  you  presentlye  upon 
sighte  hereof  to  sende  for  the  constables  and  some  of  the  cheifest  and 
discreetest  inhabitauntes  in  Holborne,  Clerkenwell,  St.  Giles  in  the 
Fieldes,  &c.  and  other  places  neere  thereaboutes,  and  to  chardge 
and  comaunde  them  to  take  order  that  there  maye  be  a  stronge  and 
substancyall  watch  kept  bothe  on  Midsommer  eveninge,  Midsommer 
night  and  Sondaye  at  nighte  of  housholders  and  masters  of  families, 
to  contynue  from  the  beginninge  of  the  eveninge  untill  the  morninge, 
and  that  all  masters  of  servantes  and  of  apprentices  be  straightlie 
chardged,  as  they  will  answere  to  the  contrarye  at  theire  perilles,  to 
keepe  theire  servauntes  in  theire  houses  for  those  two  nightes,  so  as  they 
maie  be  within  the  dores  before  the  eveninge  and  not  suffered  to  come 
forthe,  nor  to  have  anye  weapons  yf  they  shoulde  be  so  lewdlie  dis- 
posed to  execute  any  evill  purpose.  And  yf  notwithstandinge  this 
straighte  chardge  and  comaundement  any  servantes,  apprentyces  or 
other  suspected  persons  shalbe  founde  in  the  streetes,  to  see  them 
presentlie  commytted  to  pryson.  Especiallie  you  shall  take  order 
that  theis  watches  of  housholders  maye  be  of  that  strength  with  theire 
weapons  as  they  maie  be  hable  yf  there  be  anie  uprore,  tumult  or 
unlawful  assemblye  to  suppresse  the  same.  Moreover  for  avoidinge 
of  theis  unlawfull  assemblies  in  those  quarters,  yt  is  thoughte  meete 
you  shall  take  order  that  there  be  noe  playes  used  in  anye  place  neere 


181 

thereaboutes,  as  the  thcator,  curtayne  or  other  usuall  places  where 
the  same  are  comonly  used,  nor  no  other  sorte  of  unlawfull  or  forhi«l - 
den  pastymes  that  draw  togeather  the  baser  sorte  of  people,  from 
hence  forth  untill  the  feast  of  St.  Michaell."1- 

By  the  orders  sent  out  on  this  occasion,  all  plays  were  forbidden 
in  and  about  London  between  June  23  and  September  29,  1592. 
It  seems  probable  that  it  was  during  this  summer,  and  as  a  re- 
sult of  this  restriction,  that  Lord  Strange's  company  addressed 
to  the  Privy  Council  the  undated  petition  preserved  in  the  Dul- 
wich  MSS.  This  may,  however,  have  been  presented  in  1593, 
though  the  very  severe  plague  which  lasted  all  that  summer  and 
autumn  makes  it  seem  improbable  that  the  Lords  would  have 
granted  in  that  season  the  permission  to  open  the  Rose  which 
apparently  resulted  from  the  petition.2  About  August,  1592, 
then, —  if  we  accept  that  year  as  the  more  probable,  —  Lord 
Strange's  players  petitioned  the  Lords  for  permission  to  reopen 
their  playhouse  on  the  Bankside,  —  that  is,  the  Rose.  Their 
company  is  large,  they  plead,  and  the  cost  of  traveling  the  coun- 
try intolerable.  The  opening  of  their  theater  will  enable  them 
to  be  ready  to  serve  her  Majesty,  and  it  will  also  be  a  great  help 
to  the  poor  watermen,  who  earn  their  living  largely  by  trans- 
porting the  audiences  to  and  from  the  Bankside.3  This  appeal 
was  apparently  seconded  by  a  petition  to  the  Lord  High  Admiral 
from  the  watermen,  preserved  among  the  same  manuscripts. 
They  beg  for  the  opening  of  Henslowe's  playhouse  as  a  measure 
of  relief  for  themselves  and  their  families.4  It  was  no  doubt  as  a 
result  of  these  appeals  that  the  Lords  issued  the  following  un- 
dated order. 

"To  the  Justices,  Bayliffes,  Constables  and  others  to  whome  yt 
shall  apperteyne.     Whereas,  not  longe  since,  upon  some  considera- 

1  Acts,  XXII,  540-551.     And  see  above,  pp.  145-146. 

2  Fleay  (London  Stage,  85-86)  dates  the  petition  1592,  as  does  Greg  (Henslowe 
Papers,  42).  Collier  says  1593.  (Alleyn  Memoirs,  2,2,.)  There  is  no  entry  of 
the  resulting  Council  Order  in  the  Register  for  1592.  For  the  summer  of  1593 
the  Register  is  lost.  This  perhaps  points  to  the  later  date  as  the  more  probable 
one. 

3  Collier,  Alleyn  Memoirs,  33-34;   Henslowe  Papers,  42. 

4  Collier,  Alleyn  Memoirs,  34-35;  Henslowe  Papers,  42-43.  Compare  the 
suit  of  the  watermen  against  the  players'  leaving  the  Bankside  in  1613.  1821 
Variorum,  III,  149  ff.,  note. 


182 

tions,  we  did  restraine  the  Lorde  Straunge  his  servauntes  from  play- 
inge  at  the  Rose  on  the  Banckside,  and  enjoyned  them  to  plaie  three 
daies  at  Newington  Butts.1  Now,  forasmuch  as  wee  are  satisfied  that 
by  reason  of  the  tediousness  of  the  waie,  and  that  of  longe  tyme 
plaies  have  not  there  bene  used  on  working  daies,  and  for  that  a  nom- 
ber  of  poore  watermen  are  therby  releeved,  yow  shall  permitt  and 
suffer  them,  or  any  other  there,  to  exercise  themselves  in  suche  sorte 
as  they  have  don  heretofore,  and  that  the  Rose  maie  be  at  libertie, 
without  any  restrainte,  so  longe  as  yt  shalbe  free  from  infection  of 
sicknes.  Any  commaundement  from  us  heretofore  to  the  contrye 
notwithstandinge."  2 

By  January  28,  1593,  the  severe  plague  which  raged  during 
that  year  had  already  become  so  serious  that  the  Privy  Council 
ordered  the  prohibition  of  all  plays,  bear-baitings,  and  other  like 
assemblages  within  the  City  or  seven  miles  thereof.3  To  assist 
the  favored  players  during  this  hard  season,  the  Lords  issued, 
in  the  spring,  to  the  companies  of  the  Earl  of  Sussex  and  Lord 
Strange,  traveling  licenses  authorizing  them  to  perform  anywhere 
outside  the  prohibited  area.4 

Another  case  illustrative  of  the  interference  of  individual  noble- 
men to  secure  for  their  players  privileges  within  the  City,  such  as 
we  have  already  seen,  is  found  on  October  8,  1594,  when  the 
Lord  Chamberlain,  Lord  Hunsdon,  requested  of  the  Lord  Mayor 
permission  for  his  company  to  perform  at  the  inn  yard  of  the 
Cross  Keys.  As  the  document  throws  some  interesting  light  on 
the  conditions  of  the  performances,  it  is  worth  quoting  at  length. 

"Where  my  nowe  company  of  players  have  byn  accustomed  for 
the  better  exercise  of  their  qualitie  and  for  the  service  of  her  Majestie 
if  need  soe  requier,  to  plaie  this  winter  time  within  the  Citye  at  the 
Crosse  Kayes  in  Gratious  Street,  these  are  to  require  and  praye  your 
Lordship  to  permitt  and  suffer  them  soe  to  doe,  the  which  I  praie  you 
the  rather  to  doe  for  that  they  have  undertaken  to  me  that  where 
heretofore  they  began  not  their  playes  till  towardes  fower  a  clock,  they 
will  now  begin  at  two  and  have  don  betwene  fower  and  five,  and  will 
nott  use  anie  drumes  or  trumpettes  att  all  for  the  callinge  of  peopell 

1  This  order  to  play  at  Newington  is  apparently  not  preserved,  and  its  date 
and  purpose  are  hard  to  establish.  The  dating  of  all  this  series  of  documents  is, 
in  fact,  decidedly  unsatisfactory. 

2  Collier,  Alleyn  Memoirs,  36;   Henslowe  Papers,  43-44. 
8  Acts,  XXIV,  31-32.  *  See  above,  p.  34. 


183 

together,  and  shal  be  contributories  to  the  poore  of  the  parishe  where 
they  plaie  accordinge  to  their  liabilities."  * 

Much  as  the  London  authorities  disliked  performances  in  the 
inn  yards  within  the  City,  the  Lord  Mayor  would  hardly  have 
dared  to  refuse  the  direct  request  of  so  powerful  a  nobleman  and 
official ;  and  we  may  probably  assume  that  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain's company  performed  at  the  Cross  Keys  that  winter,  as  they 
had  been  accustomed  to  do.2 

But  the  new  Mayor  who  took  office  on  October  28  seems  to 
have  renewxd  with  zeal  the  attack  on  the  stage.  (  On  November 
3,  1594,  he  wrote  to  the  Lord  Treasurer  informing  him  of  the 
intended  erection  of  a  new  stage  or  theater  on  the  Bankside  — 
the  Swan,  no  doubt  —  and  praying  that  this  might  be  prevented, 
on  account  of  the  evils  arising  therefrom.3  This  appeal  seems 
to  have  been  of  no  avail  in  stopping  the  building  of  the  Swan; 
but  the  Mayor,  not  yet  discouraged,  made  a  far  more  sweeping 
demand  in  the  following  autumn,  on  September  13,  1595,  — 
nothing  less  than  the  complete  suppression  of  all  plays  about  the 
City.  \  Again  he  urges  the  disorder  and  crime  hatched  within  the 
theaters. 

"Among  other  inconvenyences  it  is  not  the  least  that  the  refuse 
sort  of  evill  disposed  and  ungodly  people  about  this  Cytie  have  opor- 
tunitie  hearby  to  assemble  together  and  to  make  their  matches  for 
all  their  lewd  and  ungodly  practizes,  being  also  the  ordinary  places 
for  all  maisterles  men  and  vagabond  persons  that  haunt  the  high 
waies  to  meet  together  and  to  recreate  themselfes,  whearof  wee  begin 
to  have  experienc  again  within  these  fiew  daies  since  it  pleased  her 
highnes  to  revoke  her  comission  graunted  forthe  to  the  Provost  Mar- 
shall, for  fear  of  home  they  retired  themselfes  for  the  time  into  other 
partes  out  of  his  precinct,  but  ar  now  retorned  to  their  old  haunt,  and 
frequent  the  plaies,  as  their  manner  is,  that  ar  daily  shewed  at  the 
Theator  and  Bankside,  whearof  will  follow  the  same  inconveniences, 
whearof  wee  have  had  to  much  experienc  heartofore,  for  preventing 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Illustrations,  31-32;  Maas,  Englischc  Theatertruppen, 
82. 

7  Fleay  conjectures  that  the  request  was  refused,  but  offers  no  proof.  (London 
Stage,  134.)  He  is  apt  to  underestimate  the  frequency  of  these  inn-yard  per- 
formances, falling  into  occasional  errors  in  his  stage  history  of  this  period  because 
of  his  attempt  to  assign  companies  to  fixed  playhouses  and  not  to  inns. 

'  Remembrancia,  353. 


184 

whearof  wee  ar  humble  suters  to  your  good  LI.  and  the  rest  to  direct 
your  lettres  to  the  Justics  of  Peac  of  Surrey  and  Middlesex  for  the 
present  stay  and  finall  suppressing  of  the  said  plaies,  as  well  at  the 
Theator  and  Bankside  as  in  all  other  places  about  the  Citie."  ' 

But  the  Council  apparently  took  no  action.  It  would  seem 
that  at  this  time  the  Mayor  had  succeeded,  temporarily  at  least, 
in  stopping  plays  in  the  city  inn  yards.  On  July  22,  1596,  the 
plague  again  came  to  the  aid  of  the  Puritans,  and  the  Lords 
ordered  the  Justices  of  Middlesex  and  Surrey  to  suppress  per- 
formances.2 Another  ally  now  seems  to  have  helped  the  muni- 
cipal authorities.  Lord  Hunsdon,  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  long 
a  warm  friend  to  the  players,  died;  and  on  August  8,  1596,  Lord 
Cobham  was  appointed  in  his  place.  Cobham  apparently  had 
Puritan  leanings,  and  the  rigorous  orders  passed  against  the 
players  during  the  next  couple  of  years  have  generally  been 
attributed  to  his  influence.  But  as  his  short  administration 
was  ended  by  his  death  on  March  5,  1597,  four  months  before 
the  order  for  the  demolition  of  the  theaters,  it  is  difficult  to  be 
sure  how  far  he  was  responsible  for  the  severity. 

There  is  evidence,  however,  that  in  the  summer  of  1596  the 
players  felt  the  hardship  of  having  a  puritanical  nobleman  in 
the  position  of  Lord  Chamberlain,  —  hitherto  generally  one  of 
the  chief  protectors  of  the  drama.  In  a  letter  written  by  Nash 
to  William  Cotton  some  time  between  June  29  and  October  10  — 
and  apparently  after  August  8,  when  Cobham  became  Chamber- 
lain—  the  dramatist  complains  that  "the  players  are  piteously 
persecuted  by  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the  Aldermen ;  and,  however 
in  their  old  Lord's  time  they  thought  their  state  settled,  it  is  now 
so  uncertain  they  cannot  build  upon  it."  The  "old  Lord" 
seems  to  refer  to  Hunsdon,  the  late  Chamberlain  and  friend  to 
the  actors.3 

The  attack  on  the  theaters  was  now  continued  vigorously. 
In  November,  1596,  the  inhabitants  of  Blackfriars  petitioned  the 
Privy  Council  against  the  "common  playhouse"  which,  they 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  340-350.     There  is  a  brief  summary  in  Re- 
memoranda,  354. 
8  Acts,  XXVI,  38. 
8  See  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  292;   Fleay,  London  Stage,  157. 


185 

informed  the  Lords,  Burbagc  was  about  to  construct  in  that 
Liberty./  In  this  appeal  they  emphasize  the  annoyance  and 
danger  that  the  playhouse  will  cause  to  the  noblemen  and  other 
residents  of  the  precinct  jn>oth  by  reason  of  the  great  resort  and 
gathering  togeathcr  of  all  manner  of  vagrant  and  lewde  persons 
that,  under  cullor  of  resorting  to  the  playes,  will  come  thither 
and  worke  all  manner  of  mischeefc,  and  also  the  greate  pestring 
and  rilling  up  of  the  same  precinct,  yf  it  should  please  God  to 
send  any  visitation  of  sicknesse  as  heretofore  hath  been,  for  that 
the  same  precinct  is  allready  growne  very  populous,  and  besides 
that  the  same  playhouse  is  so  neere  the  Church  that  the  noyse 
of  the  drummes  and  trumpetts  will  greatly  disturbe  and  hinder 
both  the  ministers  and  parishioners  in  tyme  of  devine  service 
and  sermons."  For  these  reasons,  and  also  because  "there  hath 
not  at  any  tyme  heretofore  been  used  any  comon  playhouse 
within  the  same  precinct,  but  that  now  all  players  being  ban- 
ished by  the  Lord  Mayor  from  playing  within  the  Cittie  by  reason 
of  the  great  inconveniences  and  ill  rule  that  followeth  them,  they 
now  thincke  to  plant  them  selves  in  liberties,"  the  petitioners  beg 
the  Lords  to  forbid  the  use  of  this  building  as  a  playhouse.  The 
name  of  Lord  Cobham,  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  a  resident  of  the 
precinct,  does  not  appear  among  the  signers  of  the  petition,  but 
we  find  there  that  of  George,  Lord  Hunsdon,  son  of  the  former 
Chamberlain,  and  about  to  succeed  Cobham  in  that  office. 
This  seems  to  reverse  the  attitude  towards  players  usually  attrib- 
uted to  these  two  noblemen.1 

The  question  of  the  Blackfriars  theater  presents  many  puz- 
zling features.  It  is  now  well  known  that  the  petition  purport- 
ing to  come  from  Burbage,  Shakspere  and  others,  immediately 
after  the  appeal  from  the  Blackfriars  residents,  and  stating  that 
the  playhouse  has  already  been  in  use  for  years,  is  a  forgery.2 
Though  Burbage's  theater  did  not  come  into  existence  until 
1596,  there  had  been,  however,  plays  in  Blackfriars  for  many 
years  before  this;  and  the  statement  of  the  inhabitants  that  there 
had  never  been  any  "common  playhouse"  in  the  precinct  is 

1  The  petition  is  printed  at  length  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  461-462. 
'See  its  condemnation   in   Stale   Papers,    Dom.,    1595-1597,   310.     Hazlitt 
printed  the  document  in  good  faith  in  English  Drama,  35-37. 


186 

therefore  at  first  a  trifle  puzzling.  We  must  infer  that  they  did 
not  apply  this  term  to  the  inn  yard,  priory  hall,  Revels  Office 
building,  or  wherever  the  performances  had  hitherto  taken 
place.1  But  they  do  call  Burbage's  proposed  theater  a  "com- 
mon playhouse,"  as  does  the  order  of  the  city  authorities  sup- 
pressing it  in  1619.  The  players,  however,  and  their  patrons, 
seem  to  have  been  careful  to  call  it  a  "private  house,"  and  this 
is  the  term  applied  to  it  in  the  royal  patents  of  1619  and  1625. 
By  representing  it  as  a  "private  house,"  the  players  apparently 
expected  to  escape  the  laws  directed  against  "common  play- 
houses," —  a  result  that  they  seem  to  have  achieved  in  part.  It 
is  difficult  to  see  on  what  grounds  they  based  their  contention. 
Though  the  construction  of  this  theater  within  doors  was  very 
different  from  that  of  the  "common  playhouses,"  the  price  of 
admission  higher,  and  the  audience  apparently  of  a  better  class, 
the  mere  fact  that  money  was  charged  for  admission  would  seem 
to  have  stamped  it  as  a  public  theater  and  subjected  it  to  the 
usual  laws.  Such,  at  least,  would  have  been  the  case  under  the 
regulations  laid  down  by  the  London  ordinance  of  1574.2  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  status  of  the  theater  seems  to  have  remained 
ill  defined. 

What  action  the  Privy  Council  took  on  the  petition  from  the 
inhabitants  of  Blackfriars  does  not  clearly  appear.  According 
to  the  municipal  order  of  1619,  which  recites  the  history  of  this 
theater,  after  the  appeal  the  Lords  "then  forbad  the  use  of  the 
said  howse  for  playes,  and  in  June,  1600,  made  certaine  orders 
by  which,  for  many  weightie  reasons  therein  expressed,  it  is 
limitted  there  should  be  only  two  playhowses  tolerated,  whereof 
the  one  to  be  on  the  Banckside,  and  the  other  in  or  neare  Golding 
Lane,  exempting  thereby  the  Blackfryers."  But  in  defiance  of 
this  law  the  owner  of  the  theater  "  under  the  name  of  a  private 
howse  hath  converted  the  same  to  a  publique  playhowse."3  It 
seems  at  least  fairly  clear  that,  whether  or  no  the  Lords  did  ac- 
cede to  the  request  of  the  residents  of  the  precinct,  and  whether  or 
no  they  intended  the  order  of  1600  to  suppress  the  Blackfriars 
theater, — as  the  city  authorities  always  insist  they  did,  —  that 

1  See  Bond's  Lyly,  I,  24-25,  note;   Chambers,  Tudor  Revels,  18. 

2  See  above,  p.  158.  3  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  474-475. 


187 

playhouse,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  was  completed  according  to  Bur- 
bage's  plan,  and  flourished  practically  undisturbed  until  1619. 
It  is  possible  that  its  apparent  immunity  during  the  earlier  part 
of  the  period  was  partially  due  to  the  fact  that  it  was  occupied 
by  the  Chapel  Children,  — a  company  which,  as  we  shall  pres- 
ently see,  was  probably  exempt  from  many  of  the  restrictions 
applying  to  common  players.  A  playhouse  of  uncertain  status, 
in  a  precinct  of  uncertain  status,  occupied  by  actors  of  uncertain 
status,  its  legal  position  is  indeed  hard  to  define. 

In  the  following  summer,  the  Lord  Mayor  made  another 
attack  on  the  theaters,  —  a  move  which  seemed  at  first  trium- 
phantly successful.  On  July  28,  1597,  in  a  letter  to  the  Privy 
Council,  he  presented  the  following  appeal :  — 

"Wee  havefownd  by  th' examination  of  divers  apprentices  and  other 
servantes,  whoe  have  confessed  unto  us  that  the  saide  staige  playes 
were  the  very  places  of  theire  randevous  appoynted  by  them  to  meete 
with  such  otheir  as  wear  to  joigne  with  them  in  theire  designes  and 
mutinus  attemptes,  beeinge  allso  the  ordinarye  places  for  maisterles 
men  to  come  together  to  recreate  themselves,  for  avoydinge  wheareof 
wee  are  nowe  againe  most  humble  and  earnest  suitors  to  your  honors 
to  dirrect  your  lettres  as  well  to  ourselves  as  to  the  Justices  of  Peace 
of  Surrey  and  Midlesex  for  the  present  staie  and  fynall  suppressinge  of 
the  saide  stage  playes  as  well  at  the  Theatre,  Curten  and  Banckside, 
as  in  all  other  places  in  and  abowt  the  Citie."  * 

On  the  same  day,  in  prompt  response  to  this  appeal,  the  Lords 
issued  an  order  in  the  name  of  the  Queen,  for  the  prohibition 
of  all  plays  within  three  miles  of  the  City  during  the  summer, 
until  after  November  1,  and  also  for  the  demolition  of  all  theaters 
within  the  same  area.  "Her  Majestie  being  informed,"  they 
wrote  to  the  Middlesex  Justices,  "that  there  are  verie  greate 
disorders  committed  in  the  common  playhouses  both  by  lewd 
matters  that  are  handled  on  the  stages,  and  by  resorte  and  con- 
fluence of  bad  people,"  she  has  given  order  that  there  be  no  more 
plays  during  the  summer,  and  also  that  "those  playhouses  that 
are  erected  and  built  only  for  suche  purposes  shalbe  plucked 
downe,  namelie  the  Curtayne  and  the  Theatre  nere  to  Shorditch, 
or  any  other  within  that  county."     The  Justices  are  directed 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlims,  351. 


V 


188 

to  send  for  the  owners  of  the  playhouses  and  order  them  to 
"plucke  downe  quite  the  stages,  gallories  and  roomes  that  are 
made  for  people  to  stand  in,  and  so  to  deface  the  same  as  they 
maie  not  be  ymploied  agayne  to  suche  use."  If  they  do  not 
speedily  do  this,  the  magistrates  must  inform  the  Council,  which 
will  take  order  to  enforce  this  command.  A  similar  com- 
munication, we  find  from  the  Council  Register,  was  sent  to  the 
Justices  of  Surrey,  '*  requiring  them  to  take  the  like  order  for 
the  playhouses  in  the  Banckside,  in  Southwarke  or  elswhere 
in  the  said  county  within  iije  miles  of  London."  l  As  the  new 
Blackfriars  theater  was  not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  either  the 
Middlesex  or  the  Surrey  magistrates,  it  seems  to  have  been  ex- 
cluded from  these  orders  for  demolition. 

Assuredly  the  Mayor  could  hardly  have  desired  a  more  sweep- 
ing and  rigorous  edict.  Even  now,  as  one  reads  its  stern  com- 
mands, it  is  difficult  to  realize  that  it  had  scarcely  the  slightest 
effect  upon  the  theaters.  Probably  plays  ceased  for  a  time,  but 
the  order  for  the  destruction  of  the  playhouses  apparently  no  one 
even  tried  to  enforce.2  Again  we  appreciate  what  powerful 
influence  the  players  must  have  been  able  to  command,  what 
friendship  on  the  part  of  their  patrons  or  of  the  Queen  must  have 
been  brought  into  play,  to  cause  this  nullification  of  the  Council's 
orders  at  this  time. 

Just  what  it  was  that  caused  even  a  temporary  desire,  on  the 
part  of  the  Lords,  to  take  such  severe  measures  against  the  thea- 
ters, does  not  appear.  Mr.  Fleay  suggests  that  the  suppression 
of  plays  was  due  to  the  trouble  over  the  representation  of  Sir 
John  Oldcastle  in  Henry  IV ;z  but  there  seems  to  be  no  evidence 
for  this,  and  one  would  certainly  not  expect  such  a  severe  pun- 
ishment for  a  comparatively  slight  offense,  —  one  which  was, 
moreover,  apparently  so  promptly  atoned  for.4    As  I  have  al- 

1  Acts,  XXVII,  313-314.     Printed  in  part  in  Halliwcll-Phillipps,  Outlines, 

3SO-35I- 

2  The  Theater,  it  is  true,  was  torn  down  in  the  winter  of  1 598-1 599,  and  its 
materials  used  in  the  construction  of  the  Globe,  on  the  Bankside.  This,  however, 
was  not  in  consequence  of  the  Council  Order,  but  chiefly  because  of  the  expira- 
tion of  Burbage's  lease  of  the  Holywell  land.     See  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines, 

354  ff. 

5  London  Stage,  158.  *  See  above,  pp.  96-97. 


189 

ready  mentioned,  William  Brooke,  Lord  Cobham,  the  puritan- 
ical Lord  Chamberlain  to  whose  influence  the  order  is  often 
attributed,  had  died  four  months  before,  and  George,  Lord 
Hunsdon,  admittedly  the  friend  of  the  players,  had  been  Cham- 
berlain for  about  three  months. 

In  spite  of  the  stern  attitude  towards  the  drama  taken  tempora- 
rily by  the  Privy  Council,  we  find,  a  few  monthslater,  that  the  Lords 
had  granted  special  privileges  to  the  two  companies  accustomed 
to  perform  before  the  Queen.  On  February  19,  1598,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  the  Council  mentioned  the  special  license,  the  mo- 
nopoly of  playing,  which  they  had  given  to  the  Lord  Admiral's 
and  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  companies;  and  ordered  Tilney 
to  suppress  the  intruding  third  company,  and  any  others  who 
might  presume  to  play.1 

That  the  Bankside  theaters,  at  least,  were  flourishing  in 
the  following  summer,  appears  from  an  entry  in  the  Parish 
Register  of  St.  Saviour's,  on  July  19,  1598.  The  vestry  deter- 
mined to  appeal  to  the  Privy  Council  for  the  suppression  of  the 
playhouses  in  that  vicinity,  and  to  show  "the  enormities  that 
come  thereby  to  the  parish."  2  That  the  suffering  of  the  resi- 
dents from  the  gathering  of  disorderly  persons  at  the  theaters 
may  well  have  been  exceptionally  great  during  this  summer,  is 
shown  by  the  appointment  of  a  Provost  Marshal  by  the  Privy 
Council  on  September  6,  to  deal  with  the  unusual  number  of 
rogues  and  vagabonds  in  and  about  London.3  Though  the 
parish  did  not  succeed  in  getting  the  Bankside  theaters  sup- 
pressed, its  feelings  were  doubtless  somewhat  mollified  by  the 
arrangements  later  made,  in  March,  1600,  for  the  players'  con- 
tributions of  money  for  the  poor.4 

The  final  notable  stage  in  the  history  of  theatrical  regulations 
under  Elizabeth  opens  with  the  erection  of  the  Fortune  theater 
about  January,  1600,  and  includes  the  order  for  the  restriction 
of  playhouses  which  followed  upon  this  event  and  gave  rise  to 
considerable  governmental  correspondence  during  the  next  few 
years.     The   Middlesex   Justices  apparently  opposed   in  some 

1  See  above,  p.  58. 

2  Chalmers,  Apology,  404;    1821  Variorum,  III,  452,  note. 

3  See  above,  p.  178.  '  See  above,  p.  60. 


190 

way  the  erection  of  Alleyn  and  Henslowe's  new  theater.  On 
January  12,  1600,  the  Earl  of  Nottingham,  Lord  Admiral,  came 
to  the  aid  of  his  company  by  sending  to  the  Middlesex  magis- 
trates a  letter  "praying  and  requiring"  them  to  permit  his  ser- 
vant, Edward  Alleyn,  to  proceed  in  "  theffectinge  and  finisheing" 
of  the  new  playhouse.  The  site  is  very  convenient,  he  urges,  and 
the  house  the  actors  have  hitherto  occupied,  the  Rose,  in  so 
dangerous  a  state  of  decay  that  it  is  no  longer  fit  for  use.  These 
players,  moreover,  have  acted  before  the  Queen  and  are  favored 
by  her.1  In  spite  of  this  urgent  appeal  there  seems  to  have  been 
further  opposition  to  the  theater.  But  the  company  now  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  support  from  the  residents  of  the  locality  where 
they  wished  to  settle.  "The  Inhabitants  of  the  Lordship  of 
Finsbury"  sent  to  the  Privy  Council  a  "Certificate  of  their 
Consent  to  the  Tolleration  of  the  Erection  of  the  new  Playhouse 
there."  As  reasons  for  their  approval,  they  stated  that  the  place 
chosen  for  the  theater  was  a  remote  one,  and  that  the  erectors 
of  the  house  were  to  contribute  a  liberal  sum  weekly  towards  the 
relief  of  the  poor,  —  a  duty  which  the  parish  itself  was  not 
wealthy  enough  to  perform  adequately.2  Perhaps  impressed 
by  the  unusual  welcome  accorded  by  the  neighbors  of  the  pro- 
posed playhouse,  but  more  probably  at  the  instigation  of  the 
Lord  Admiral,  the  Queen  now  seems  to  have  intervened.  On 
April  8,  1600,  the  Privy  Council  sent  to  the  Middlesex  Justices 
a  warrant  requiring  them,  by  order  of  the  Queen,  to  permit 
Edward  Alleyn  to  complete  his  theater  in  the  "verie  remote 
and  exempt  place  neare  Gouldinge  Lane."  This  new  house,  the 
Lords  write,  is  to  take  the  place  of  the  Rose,  which  is  to  be  pulled 
down,3  —  an  arrangement  later  altered,  as  we  shall  see. 

The  erection  of  the  new  theater,  coupled,  apparently,  with 
continued  disorders  at  the  other  playhouses,  aroused  renewed 
opposition  to  theatrical  performances.  Impressed  by  the  pro- 
tests, the  Privy  Council,  on  June  22,  1600,  issued  an  order  "for 
the  restrainte  of  the  imoderate  use  and  Companye  of  Playe- 
howses  and  Players."     "Whereas  divers  complaintes,"  the  act 

1  Collier,  Alleyn  Memoirs,  55-56;    Henslowe  Papers,  49~5°- 

2  Collier,  Alleyn  Memoirs,  58;   Henslowe  Papers,  50-51. 

3  Collier,  Alleyn  Memoirs,  57;  Henslowe  Papers,  51-52. 


191 

recites,  "have  bin  heretofore  made  unto  the  Lordes  and  others 
of  her  Majesties  Privye  Counsell  of  the  manyfolde  abuses  and 
disorders  that  have  growen  and  do  contynue  by  occasion  of  many 
houses  erected  and  employed  in  and  about  the  cittie  of  London 
for  common  stage-playes,  and  now  verie  latelie  by  reason  of 
some  complainte  exhibited  by  sundry  persons  againste  the  buyld- 
inge  of  the  like  house  in  or  near  Golding-lane  by  one  Edward 
Allen,  a  servant  of  the  right  honorable  the  Lord  Admyrall,"  the 
whole  question  of  theaters  has  again  been  taken  up  by  the  Lords. 
The  purpose  of  the  act  and  the  attitude  of  the  Council  towards 
plays  arc  now  clearly  expressed. 

"  Forasmuch  as  it  is  manifestly  knowen  and  graunted  that  the  multi- 
tude of  the  saide  houses  and  the  mys-government  of  them  hath  bin 
and  is  dayly  occasion  of  the  ydle,  ryotous  and  dissolute  living  of  great 
nombers  of  people,  that,  leavinge  all  such  honest  and  painefull  course 
of  life  as  they  should  follow,  doe  meete  and  assemble  there,  and  of 
many  particular  abuses  and  disorders  that  doe  thereupon  ensue;  and 
yet,  nevertheless,  it  is  considered  that  the  use  and  exercise  of  such 
playes,  not  beinge  evill  in  ytself,  may  with  a  good  order  and  modera-  ( 
cion  be  suffered  in  a  well-governed  state,  and  that  her  Majestie,  beinge 
pleased  at  somtymes  to  take  delight  and  recreation  in  the  sight  and  * 
hearinge  of  them,  some  order  is  fitt  to  be  taken  for  the  allowance  and 
mayntenaunce  of  such  persons  as  are  thought  meetest  in  that  kinde 
to  yealde  her  Majestie  recreation  and  delighte,  and  consequently  of 
the  houses  that  must  serve  for  publike  playinge  to  keepe  them  in 
exercise.  To  the  ende,  therefore,  that  both  the  greate  abuses  of  the 
playes  and  playinge-houses  may  be  redressed,  and  yet  the  aforesaide 
use  and  moderation  of  them  retayned,  the  Lordes  and  the  rest  of  her 
Majesties  Privie  Counsell,  with  one  and  full  consent,  have  ordered  j 
in  manner  and  forme  as  followeth." 

The  rules  laid  down  are  very  definite.  First,  as  to  the  num- 
ber of  playhouses, —  there  shall  be  only  two  "to  serve  for  the 
use  of  the  common  stage-playes,"  one  to  be  on  the  Bankside, 
the  other  in  Middlesex.  Since  the  Fortune,  as  Tilney  has  in- 
formed the  Lords,  is  to  take  the  place  of  the  Curtain  —  not  of  the  ■ 
Rose,  as  was  first  announced  —  Alleyn's  new  theater  is  the  one 
authorized  in  Middlesex,  and  is  to  be  occupied  by  the  Lord 
Admiral's  company.  The  Curtain  is  to  be  destroyed.  On  the 
Surrey  side,  the  Council  has  permitted  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
company  to  choose  a  playhouse,  and  it  has  selected  the  Globe. 


J 


192 

Apart  from  these  two  no  theaters  are  to  be  allowed ;  nor  shall 
there  be  any  more  performances  in  "any  common  inne  for  pub-  y 
lique  assembly  in  or  neare  aboute  the  Cittie."  /* 

Secondly,  "forasmuch  as  these  stage-plaies,  by  the  multitude 
of  houses  and  the  company  of  players,  have  bin  so  frequent, 
not  servinge  for  recreation  but  invitinge  and  callinge  the  people 
dayly  from  their  trade  and  worke  to  myspend  their  tyme,"  it 
is  ordered  that  these  two  privileged  companies  shall  perform  only 
twice  each  week,  never  on  the  Sabbath,  or  in  Lent,  or  in  time  of 
"extraordinary  sickness"  in  or  about  the  city. 

Thirdly,  to  secure  the  strict  enforcement  of  these  rules,  it  is 
ordered  that  copies  be  sent  to  the  Lord  Mayor  and  to  the  Jus- 
tices of  the  Peace  of  Middlesex  and  Surrey,  together  with  letters 
urging  them  to  carry  out  the  laws,  imprison  any  who  violate  them, 
and  report  their  proceedings  to  the  Privy  Council  from  time  to 
time.1  A  copy  of  this  urgent  request  follows  in  the  Council 
Register.2 

It  seems  almost  useless  to  rehearse  these  orders  here  at  such 
length,  for  their  enforcement  was  evidently  lax  and  irregular  in 
the  extreme,  —  if  indeed  they  were  ever  enforced  at  all.  The 
Lords  themselves  seem  to  have  had  little  desire  for  the  rigor- 
ous carrying  out  of  these  commands.  Indeed,  they  apparently 
soon  forgot  all  about  them;  for  when,  in  May,  1601,  complaints 
were  made  of  the  offensive  play  at  the  Curtain,  and  the  Privy 
Council  ordered  the  Middlesex  Justices  to  censor  it,  the  exis- 
tence and  activity  of  this  theater  seems  not  to  have  disturbed 
them  in  the  least,  and  they  made  no  allusion  to  the  fact  that 
some  ten  months  before  they  had  directed  that  it  be  demol- 
ished.3 

But  the  existence  of  the  regulations  was  soon  recalled  to  their 
minds.  The  municipal  and  shire  officials  had  apparently  been 
as  forgetful  as  the  Lords,  and  the  continued  abuses  gave  rise 
to  fresh  complaints.  In  December,  1601,  the  Lord  Mayor 
again  protested  to  the  Privy  Council  against  the  playhouses. 

1  The  order  is  printed  at  length  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  466-468, 
and  in  Acts,  XXX,  395-398. 

2  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  468-469;  Acts,  XXX,  411. 
*  See  above,  p.  100. 


193 

Thus  reminded  that  the  fault  was  not  theirs,  the  Lords,  in  a  burst 
of  righteous  indignation,  replied  sternly  to  the  Mayor.  The 
sarcasm  of  the  opening  sentence  suggests  that  the  writer  felt 
satisfaction  in  being  able  to  retort  in  such  wise  to  the  Puritan 

City. 

"Wee  have  receaved  a  letter  from  you  renewing  a  complaint  of  the 
great  abuse  and  disorder  within  and  about  the  cittie  of  London  by 
reason  of  the  multitude  of  play-howses  and  the  inordinate  resort  and 
concourse  of  dissolute  and  idle  people  daielie  unto  publique  stage 
plaies,  for  the  which  information  as  wee  do  commende  your  Lordship 
because  it  betokeneth  your  care  and  desire  to  reforme  the  disorders  of 
the  cittie,  so  wee  must  lett  you  know  that  wee  did  muche  rather  ex- 
pect to  understand  that  our  order  (sett  downe  and  prescribed  about 
a  yeare  and  a  half  since  for  the  reformation  of  the  said  disorders  upon 
the  like  complaint  at  that  tyme)  had  bin  duelie  executed,  then  to  finde 
the  same  disorders  and  abuses  so  muche  encreased  as  they  are,  the 
blame  whereof,  as  we  cannot  but  impute  in  great  part  to  the  Justices 
of  the  Peace  of  Middlesex  and  Surrey  ...  so  wee  do  wishe  that  it 
might  appeare  unto  us  that  anythinge  hath  bin  endeavoured  by  the 
predecessours  of  you,  the  Lord  Maiour,  and  by  you,  the  Aldermen, 
for  the  redresse  of  the  said  enormities  and  for  observation  and  execu- 
tion of  our  said  order  within  the  cittie." 

The  enforcement  of  the  rule  is  again  urged.  Violators  are  to 
be  put  on  bond  or  imprisoned.  "And  so  praying  yow,"  con- 
clude the  Lords,  "as  yourself  do  make  the  complaint  and  finde 
the  enormitie,  so  to  applie  your  best  endeavour  to  the  remedie 
of  the  abuse."  * 

On  the  same  day,  December  31,  1601,  the  Council  sent  a 
letter  to  the  Justices  of  Middlesex  and  Surrey,  severely  censuring 
them  for  their  negligence.  "It  is  in  vaine  for  us  to  take  knowl- 
edg  of  great  abuses  and  disorders  complayncd  of  and  to  give 
order  for  redresse,  if  our  directions  finde  no  better  execution  and 
observation  than  it  seemeth  they  do,  and  wee  must  needes  im- 
pute the  fault  and  blame  thereof  to  you  or  some  of  you,  the  Jus- 
tices of  the  Peace."  They  summarize  their  order  of  a  year  and 
a  half  since,  and  vigorously  describe  the  lack  of  enforcement. 
"Wee  do  now  understande  that  our  said  order  hath  bin  so  farr 
from  takinge  dew  effect,  as,  in  steede  of  restrainte  and  redresse 

lAds,  XXXII,  468-469;    Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  469-47°- 
o 


194 

of  the  former  disorders,  the  multitude  of  play  howses  is  much 
encreased,  and  that  no  daie  passeth  over  without  many  stage 
plaies  in  one  place  or  other  within  and  about  the  cittie  publiquelie 
made."  The  Justices,  the  Lords  assert,  have  not  reported  on 
this  matter,  as  they  were  ordered  to  do.  They  are  now  com- 
manded to  mend  their  ways.1 

Apparently  the  exhortations  of  the  Lords  had  little  or  no  effect. 
That  the  Privy  Council  itself  felt  by  no  means  bound  to  observe 
its  own  rules,  and  soon  relapsed  from  its  stern  attitude,  is  shown 

—  if  proof  be  needed  —  by  a  letter  which  it  sent  to  the  Lord 
Mayor  a  few  months  later.  On  March  31,  1602,  in  violation  of 
its  own  rule  against  performances  in  inn  yards,  the  Council  bade 
the  Mayor  allow  the  servants  of  the  Earl  of  Worcester  and 
the  Earl  of  Oxford  to  play  at  the  Boar's  Head  in  Eastcheap.2 
According  to  Mr.  Fleay's  estimate,  in  spite  of  the  restrictive 
measures  eight  playing  places  were  open  in  and  about  London 
in  1602. 3 

The  almost  absurd  laxness  in  carrying  out  these  restrictions 
>  of  1600  is  puzzling  in  part.  From  the  Council's  letter  it  would 
V/dppear  that  even  the  city  authorities  had  not  endeavored  to  sup- 
press unlawful  plays.  Why  the  Puritan  opposition  was  thus 
relaxed  —  if  it  was  —  is  not  clear.  Mr.  Fleav's  comment  on 
the  affair  is  that  the  ruling  motive  was  not  Puritan  on  the  city 
side,  but  an  "obstinate  determination  to  assert  their  privileges," 

—  leading  the  municipal  authorities  to  suppress  playing  places 
whenever  the  Court  wanted  them  open,  and  to  allow  freedom 
to  them  all  when  the  Court  wished  to  give  a  "monopoly  to  the 
favored  companies.4  This  is  not  convincing.  Of  course,  the 
opposition  on  the  city  side  was,  as  we  have  observed,  not  exr 
clusively  and  merely  Puritan  in  motive;  but  an  "obstinate 
determination  to  assert  their  privileges"  does  not  seem  to  de- 
scribe their  attitude.  By  this  time  they  must  have  been  pretty 
well  hardened  to  the  interference  and  encroachments  of  the  royal 
government,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been  almost  continual 
for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  Their  communications  to  the  Privy 
Council  seem  to  admit  freely  the  right  of  the  Lords  to  regulate 

1  Acts,  XXXII,  466-468;    Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  470-471. 

2  Rcmembrancia,  355.  3  London  Stage,  161.  *  Ibid. 


195 

the  drama  in  and  about  London,  and  to  entreat  merely  that  these 
regulations  may  be  restrictive  enough  to  protect  the  City  from 
the  abuses  of  the  theaters.  The  laxness  of  the  municipality 
at  this  particular  time  —  if  indeed  it  was  lenient  to  the  playing 
places  within  London  —  may  have  been  due  to  a  variety  of 
causes.  Perhaps  the  Lord  Mayor  in  office  for  the  year  1600- 
1601  was  not  of  Puritan  inclinations,  but  personally  in  favor 
of  the  stage.  Or  he  may  have  been  merely  lax  and  careless. 
Or  the  players  may  have  brought  all  sorts  of  powerful  influences 
to  bear.  Probably  the  immense  public  demand  for  plays  at 
this  time,  forcibly  described  in  the  Council  Order  of  1600,  was 
so  intense  that  the  general  public  opinion  tended  to  prevent  the 
enforcement  of  the  restrictions.  Moreover  and  finally,  there 
seems  to  have  been  at  this  period,  one  might  almost  say,  a 
presumption  in  favor  of  the  non-enforcement  of  any  given 
regulation. 

There  is  another  puzzling  question  in  connection  with  the 
restrictive  order  of  1600.  Was  it  intended  to  apply  to  the  chil- 
dren's companies,  or  were  they,  as  well  as  the  two  privileged 
men's  companies,  expected  to  perform?  Were  their  playing 
places  not  considered  as  serving  "for  the  use  of  the  common 
stage-playes"?  The  Paul's  Boys  in  their  singing-school,  and 
the  Children  of  the  Chapel  in  the  new  Blackfriars  theater,  seem 
to  have  acted  undisturbed  during  this  period  of  agitation;  but 
whether  this  was  due  to  their  special  exemption,  or  merely  to 
the  general  non-enforcement  of  the  law,  is  not  clear.  They  are 
not  mentioned  in  the  orders  and  complaints  which  we  have 
been  considering.  On  March  11,  1601,  however,  when  the 
Privy  Council  wrote  to  the  Lord  Mayor  requiring  him  not  to 
fail  in  suppressing  plays  during  Lent  within  the  City  and  the 
liberties  thereof,  they  added  "especyally  at  Powles  and  in  the 
Blackfriars."  1  This  indicates  that  the  children's  companies 
were  performing  as  usual,  and  that  the  regulation  of  them  was 
attended  to  at  times.  We  know,  indeed,  from  other  sources, 
that  they  were  especially  successful  during  these  years.  The 
whole  question  of  the  status  of  these  companies,  which  this 
brings  up,  is  decidedly  puzzling,  and  there  seems  to  be,  as  yet, 

1  Acts,  XXXI,  218. 


196 

very  little  available  material  throwing  light  on  it.  I  would 
conjecture  that  these  two  companies  were,  in  the  eyes  of  the  law, 
on  a  footing  considerably  different  from  that  of  the  other  players. 
Probably  they  were  not  technically  regarded  as  professional 
actors,  since  their  real  profession  was  supposed  to  be  choral 
singing.  By  virtue  of  their  connection  with  the  church,  as 
choristers  of  St.  Paul's  and  of  the  Royal  Chapel;  or  because 
of  their  inclusion  in  the  royal  service ;  or  on  the  strength  of  the 
royal  patents  authorizing  the  Masters  to  take  up  boys  for  choral 
purposes ;  or  for  all  these  reasons,  —  they  were  probably  tacitly 
allowed  special  privileges  and  a  status  peculiarly  their  own. 
The  laws  restricting  the  number  of  "common  players"  and 
common  playing  places  would  therefore  probably  not  apply  to 
them.  But  the  Lenten  and  Sunday  regulations  would  be  es- 
pecially appropriate  in  their  case,  and  the  plague  restriction, 
so  essential  for  the  welfare  of  the  community,  was  probably 
also  expected  to  be  obeyed  by  them.  Under  James,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  children  were  given  regular  patents  for  playing,  and 
seem  to  have  been  placed  on  much  the  same  footing  as  the  other 
actors.  Finally,  in  1626,  the  patent  to  Giles  forbade  the  use  of 
the  Chapel  Children  for  dramatic  purposes.1 

On  March  19,  1603,  five  days  before  the  death  of  Elizabeth, 
the  Privy  Council  ordered  the  Mayor  and  the  Justices  of  Middle- 
sex and  Surrey  to  suppress  all  plays  until  further  notice.2 
Whether  this  was  because  of  Lent,  of  the  plague,  or  of  the  Queen's 
illness  does  not  appear.  But  plays  evidently  began  again 
within  less  than  six  weeks  after  Elizabeth's  death.  We  learn 
from  Henslowe's  Diary  that  the  performances  were  stopped  on 
May  5,  "at  the  King's  coming,"  two  days  before  James'  arrival 
in  London,   and  resumed  "by  the  King's  license"  on  May  g.3 

With  the  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign  we  have  reached  the  prac- 
tical conclusion  of  the  struggle  between  the  municipal  and  the 
royal  governments  over  plays.  On  the  whole,  the  City  met 
defeat.  Though  performances  in  the  inn  yards  within  the 
municipal  jurisdiction  seem  now  to  have  ceased,  the  obnoxious 
theaters  in  the  Liberties  continued  to  flourish  undisturbed.     All 

1  See  above,  pp.  37-38. 

2  Acts,  XXXII,  492.  '  Henslowe's  Diary,  174,  190. 


197 

regulation  of  the  drama  was  now  organized  under  the  system  of 
royal  patents  and  the  administration  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels, 
—  both  of  which  we  have  already  considered.  The  monopoly 
of  playing  in  and  about  London  granted  by  the  royal  patents  had 
grown  naturally  out  of  the  exclusive  privileges  awarded  to  the 
favored  companies  under  Elizabeth.  But  whereas,  during  the 
later  years  of  the  Queen's  reign,  there  had  been  some  attempt 
to  restrict  the  number  of  the  men's  companies  to  two,  under 
James  and  Charles  at  least  four  or  five  were  generally  privileged 
to  perform.  The  playing  places  authorized  for  the  favored 
actors  were  specified  in  the  patents;  the  Master  of  the  Revels 
was  intrusted  with  the  regulation  of  performances;  and  there 
resulted  at  least  the  appearance,  and  to  a  considerable  extent 
the  practice,  of  greater  regularity  and  consistency  in  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  rules. 

In  the  face  of  this  system  of  royal  regulation  and  authoriza- 
tion, the  city  government  subsided.1  It  was,  indeed,  practically 
helpless.  The  fixed  theaters  were,  until  1608,  all  outside  the 
Mayor's  jurisdiction,2  and  for  the  most  part  specially  licensed 
by  the  Crown.  Even  when  Blackfriars  and  Whitefriars  came 
under  the  municipal  authority,  the  players  were  effectually  shel- 
tered by  the  royal  protection.  But,  on  the  whole,  the  state  of  the 
City  was  not  so  bad  as  it  might  have  been.  The  obnoxious  per- 
formances in  inn  yards  were  apparently  now  given  up,  and, 
with  the  improvement  which  seems  to  have  taken  place  in  the 
class  of  spectators  who  attended  the  theaters,  disorders  resulted 
much  less  frequently.  There  are,  indeed,  indications  that  the 
hostility  towards  plays  hitherto  felt  by  the  municipal  officials 
and  the  upper  classes  of  the  citizens  had  now  somewhat  dimin- 
ished, and  that  the  city  government  was  no  longer  so  intensely 
eager  to  banish  all  actors.  But  the  Puritan  antipathy  to  the 
drama,  though  it  found  for  the  time  no  expression  in  municipal 


1  In  December,  1625,  there  was  a  slight  recurrence  of  the  old  dispute.  The 
Mayor  and  the  Aldermen  imputed  the  recent  plague  to  the  assemblages  at  the 
theaters,  and  requested  the  entire  suppression  of  such  performances,  —  appar- 
ently without  result.     See  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  438. 

2  The  later  playhouses,  the  Cockpit,  in  Drury  Lane,  and  the  Red  Bull,  in 
Clerkenwell,  were  also  beyond  reach  of  the  city  officials. 


198 

legislation,  remained  deep  and  bitter,  spreading  through  many 
classes  of  society  and  awaiting  its  chance  for  a  decisive  blow. 

Though  the  victory  of  the  City  in  the  long  controversy  that 
we  have  been  tracing  would  have  seriously  hindered  the  develop- 
ment of  the  drama,  it  is  impossible  to  follow  the  dispute  in  detail 
without  sympathizing  with  the  municipality.  There  seems  to 
have  been  much  justification  for  their  complaints  against  the 
theaters,  which  certainly  in  many  cases  fomented  disorder  and 
crime.  And  the  invasion  by  the  Crown  of  their  rights  of  local 
self-government  must  sometimes  have  been  exasperating  in  the 
extreme.  That  they  should  have  been  forced,  merely  in  order 
to  give  the  court  players  a  chance  to  practise  for  the  better 
diversion  of  the  Queen,  to  tolerate  performances  which  they 
sincerely  regarded  as  highly  dangerous  in  spreading  the  plague 
and  gravely  injurious  to  the  morals  and  good  order  of  the  com- 
munity, seems  an  act  of  tyranny  which  might  well  arouse  a 
spirit  of  rebellion.  But  we  must  be  careful  not  to  read  into 
their  age  the  feelings  of  our  own.  With  rare  exceptions,  at  the 
mention  of  the  Queen's  name  they  seem  to  have  bowed  in  loyal 
submission. 

The  chapters  on  the  Master  of  the  Revels  and  the  censorship 
have  covered  most  of  the  history  of  theatrical  regulation  in 
London  during  the  years  1 603-1642,  when  the  crown  officials 
were  in  charge.  There  remain  to  be  considered  only  a  few 
cases  of  royal  and  municipal  legislation  affecting  the  London 
stage.  Most  of  these  center  about  the  famous  precinct  of  Black- 
friars,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  came  under  the  municipal  juris- 
diction in  1608.  The  City  made  no  move,  for  the  present, 
against  the  King's  company,  which  now  began  to  occupy  Bur- 
bagc's  playhouse;  but  in  1615,  when  the  construction  of  a  sec- 
ond theater  in  that  precinct  was  begun,  the  municipality  protested. 

The  case  is  a  puzzling  one.  On  May  31,  161 5,  a  Privy  Seal 
was  apparently  issued,  directing  a  patent  under  the  Great  Seal 
to  Philip  Rosseter  and  others.  This  recites  the  grant  of  Rosse- 
ter's  patent  of  January  4,  1610,  for  the  Children  of  the  Queen's 
Revels,  who  have  been  performing  in  Whitefriars,  and  it  au- 
thorizes him  to  construct  a  new  playhouse  in  Blackfriars,  on 
land  which  he  has  leased  for  that  purpose,  —  "  all  wcb  premisses 


199 

are  scittuat  and  being  w"'in  the  precinct  of  the  Blackfryers  neere 
Puddlewharfe,  in  the  Subburbes  of  London,  called  by  the  name 
of  the  Ladie  Saunders  house,  or  otherwise  Porters  Hall,  and 
nowe  in  the  occupac'on  of  the  said  Robert  Jones."  The  Revels 
Children,  the  Prince's  company,  and  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  are 
authorized  to  perform  in  this  theater.1 

Upon  the  grant  of  this  patent  Rosseter  began  to  construct 
his  playhouse.  Whereupon  the  Mayor  and  the  Aldermen,  as 
we  learn  from  an  order  of  the  Privy  Council,  complained  to 
the  Lords  that  he  had  pulled  down  "Lady  Sanders"  house,  at 
Puddle-wharf,  in  the  precinct  of  Blackfriars,  and  was  building 
a  theater  there,  to  the  great  prejudice  and  inconvenience  of  the 
government  of  the  City.  The  Privy  Council  sent  for  Rosseter, 
and  had  his  letters  patent  inspected  by  the  Lord  Chief  Justice. 
As  a  result  of  their  deliberations,  because  of  the  inconveniences 
urged  by  the  Mayor,  and  especially  the  fact  that  the  nearness  of 
the  proposed  playhouse  to  a  church  would  cause  interruption 
of  Divine  Service  on  week-days,  "and  that  the  Lord  Chief  Jus- 
tice did  deliver  to  their  Lordships  that  the  license  granted  to 
the  said  Rosseter,  did  extend  to  the  building  of  a  playhouse 
without  the  liberties  of  London  and  not  within  the  City,"  the 
Council  ordered,  on  September  26,  1615,  that  there  should  be 
no  theater  constructed  in  that  place.  They  bade  the  Mayor 
stop  Rosseter  and  his  workmen,  and  imprison  them  should  they 
prove  disobedient.2 

Since  Rosseter's  patent,  as  we  have  it,  expressly  authorizes 
him,  in  the  passage  that  I  have  quoted,  to  construct  the  theater 
on  the  very  plot  where  he  was  building,  the  decision  of  the  Chief 
Justice  and  of  the  Council  is  puzzling.  Mr.  Fleay  suggests 
that  the  existing  patent  is  a  Collier  forgery.3  This  may  possibly 
be  the  case,  though  no  motive  for  a  forgery  is  here  evident.  But 
the  apparent  contradiction  can,  I  think,  be  explained  in  another 
way.  The  Lord  Chief  Justice  who  rendered  the  decision  was 
the  famous  Coke,  removed  from  office  about  a  year  afterwards 

1  The  patent  is  printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  46-48,  and  in  Collier, 
English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  381-382. 

2  The  order  is  printed  in  full  in  1821  Variorum,  III,  493-494,  note. 
5  London  Stage,  263-264. 


200 

for  opposing  the  royal  and  ecclesiastical  prerogatives,  and  later 
a  leader  of  the  popular  party  in  Parliament,  where  he  vigorously 
fought  against  monopolies  and  other  royal  tyrannies.  It  may 
be  that  on  this  occasion  he  sympathized  with  the  protest  of  the 
City  against  the  invasion  of  their  jurisdiction,  and  took  advan- 
tage of  a  technical  flaw  in  the  phrasing  of  the  patent,  to  decide 
against  Rosseter.  The  authorization,  as  I  have  quoted  it,  speci- 
fies Lady  Saunder's  house  in  Blackfriars,  but  mentions  it  as 
situated  "in  the  Subburbes  of  London"  whereas  Blackfriars 
was  now  actually  within  the  City.  This  irregularity  might 
justify  Coke  in  saying  that  the  license  authorized  a  playhouse 
"without  the  liberties  of  London  and  not  within  the  City."  It 
will  be  noticed  that  the  patent  granted  four  years  later  to  the 
King's  company  is  careful  to  specify  Blackfriars  as  "within 
our  City  of  London." 

Moreover,  there  is  evidence  that  the  King  himself  regretted 
the  issue  of  the  patent,  and  was  not  unwilling  to  have  the  Privy 
Council  declare  it  void.  For  when  Rosseter  obstinately  per- 
sisted in  completing  the  theater,  the  Lords,  on  January  26,  1616 
or  161 7/  sent  the  following  order  to  the  Mayor. 

"Whereas  his  Majesty  is  informed  that  notwithstanding  divers 
commandments  and  prohibitions  to  the  contrary,  there  be  certain 
persons  that  go  about  to  set  up  a  playhouse  in  the  Blackfryars,  near 
unto  his  Majesty's  Wardrobe,  and  for  that  purpose  have  lately  erected 
and  made  fit  a  building  which  is  almost  if  not  fully  finished:  You 
shall  understand  that  his  Majesty  hath  this  day  expressly  signified 
his  pleasure,  that  the  same  shall  be  pulled  down;  so  as  it  be  made 
unfit  for  any  such  use.  Whereof  we  require  your  Lordship  to  take 
notice,  and  to  cause  it  to  be  performed  with  all  speed,  and  thereupon 
to  certify  us  of  your  proceedings."  3 

This  seems  to  refer  to  Rosseter's  house.  Perhaps  it  had  been 
decided  that  a  theater  so  "near  unto  his  Majesty's  Wardrobe" 
would  be  inconvenient.  Or  influence  of  some  other  kind  may 
have  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the  King  to  make  him  practically 
annul  his  grant. 

1  Chalmers  dates  it  1616-1617.  {1821  Variorum,  III,  494,  note.)  Fleay 
thinks  it  was  probably  1616.  {London  Stage,  264.)  The  later  date  certainly 
makes  a  very  long  interval  elapse. 

2 1S21  Variorum,  III,  494,  note. 


201 

In  spite  of  all  the  opposition,  Rosseter's  theater  seems  to  have 
been  open  for  a  few  performances  at  least.  The  title-page  of 
Field's  Amends  for  Ladies,  printed  in  1618,  states  that  it  was 
"acted  at  the  Blacke-Fryers,  both  by  the  Princes  Servants,  and 
the  Lady  Elizabeths."  1  As  these  were  two  of  the  companies 
for  which  the  new  playhouse  was  intended,  it  seems  likely  that 
the  comedy  was  performed  there. 

A  few  years  later  the  inhabitants  of  Blackfriars,  perhaps  en- 
couraged by  the  fate  of  Rosseter's  theater,  determined  to  make 
an  effort  to  free  themselves  from  the  inconveniences  caused  by 
Burbage's  playhouse,  long  established  in  their  precinct  and  now 
occupied  by  the  King's  company.  The  royal  patent  held  by 
these  players  specified  only  the  Globe  as  their  authorized  theater 
and  gave  them  no  explicit  right  to  perform  in  Blackfriars.  Their 
position  therefore  seemed  open  to  attack.  As  the  precinct  was 
now  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  City,  the  residents  appealed, 
not  to  the  Privy  Council,  as  in  1596,  but  to  the  Mayor  and  the 
Aldermen.  About  January,  1619,  the  minister,  the  church- 
wardens, the  sidesmen,  the  constables,  the  collectors,  and  the 
scavengers  of  the  precinct  addressed  a  petition  to  the  municipal 
authorities,  begging  for  the  suppression  of  Burbage's  playhouse 
and  rehearsing  the  inconveniences  caused  thereby.2  A  letter 
supporting  this  petition  was  also  submitted  to  the  Mayor  and 
the  Aldermen  signed  by  "divers  honorable  persons,  inhabiting 
the  precinct  of  Blackfriars."  3 

As  a  result,  the  city  authorities  issued,  on  January  21,  1619, 
an  order  for  the  suppression  of  the  theater.  This  recites  part  of 
the  history  of  the  playhouse,  as  I  have  quoted  above,  and  en- 
deavors to  make  it  appear  that  the  performances  there  are  in 
defiance  of  the  orders  of  the  Privy  Council.4  It  also  summarizes 
the  complaints  of  the  petitioners.  This  passage  gives  an  inter- 
esting glimpse  of  conditions  surrounding  performances  in  the 
famous  theater.  It  should  be  compared  with  the  petition  of 
1596,  setting  forth  the  evils  which  the  residents  feared  would 
result  from  the  establishment  of  the  playhouse,  —  especially  the 

1  Hazlitt's  Dodsley,  XI,  88.  *  Remembrancia,  355. 

3  Ibid.,  356.  *  See  above,  p.  186. 


202 

influx  of  tramps  and  rascals.1  In  contrast  to  this,  it  is  now  the 
great  press  of  coaches  from  which  they  suffer.  Apparently  the 
Blackfriars  theater  was  attracting  an  audience  greatly  superior 
in  social  status  to  what  the  precinct  had  anticipated. 

"There  is  daily,"  the  order  recites,  "so  great  resort  of  people,  and  soe 
great  multitude  of  coaches,  whereof  many  are  hackney  coaches  bringing 
people  of  all  sortes  that  sometimes  all  their  streetes  cannot  conteyne 
them,  that  they  endanger  one  the  other,  breake  downe  stalles,  throw 
downe  mens  goodes  from  their  shopps,  hinder  the  passage  of  the  in- 
habitantes  there  to  and  from  their  howses,  lett  the  bringing  in  of  their 
necessary  provisions,  that  the  tradesmen  and  shoppkeepers  cannot 
utter  their  wares,  nor  the  passengers  goe  to  the  common  water  staires 
without  danger  of  their  lives  and  lyms,  whereby  manye  times  quar- 
rells  and  effusion  of  blood  hath  followed,  and  the  minister  and  people 
disturbed  at  the  administracion  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptimse  and 
publique  prayers  in  the  afternoones." 

The  Corporation  of  London  therefore  orders  that  the  theater 
shall  be  suppressed  and  "the  players  shall  from  henceforth  for- 
bear and  desist  from  playing  in  that  house."  2 

But  the  King's  company  was  too  powerful  to  be  in  danger 
from  the  municipal  authorities.  Some  effort  to  enforce  the 
order  of  suppression  was  probably  made ;  and  the  King  came  to 
the  rescue  of  his  servants.  On  March  27,  about  two  months 
after  the  passage  of  the  ordinance,  a  new  royal  patent  was  issued 
to  these  players,  expressly  authorizing  them  to  perform,  not  only 
at  the  Globe,  but  also  —  without  any  flaw  in  the  phrasing  — 
in  "their  private  House  scituate  in  the  precincts  of  the  Black- 
friers  within  our  Citty  of  London."  3  In  the  face  of  such  royal 
authorization  the  precinct  and  the  municipal  government  were 
helpless.     The  opposition  to  the  playhouse  subsided  for  a  time. 

In  later  years  there  were  revivals  of  the  Blackfriars  agitation, 
interesting  chiefly  as  showing  the  necessity,  even  at  this  early 
day,  of  traffic  regulations  in  London.  During  163 1  the  church- 
wardens and  the  constables  of  the  precinct  petitioned  Laud, 

1  See  above,  p.  185. 

2  The  order  is  printed  at  length  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  474-475. 
1  See  above,  p.  38,  and  Appendix. 


203 

then  Bishop  of  London,  for  a  revival  of  previous  orders  made 
for  the  removal  of  the  playhouse.1  They  repeat  the  same  com- 
plaints about  the  great  numbers  of  coaches  which  were  advanced 
in  1619.  This  appeal  through  ecclesiastical  channels  was 
apparently  unsuccessful.  Bishop  Laud  indorsed  the  petition 
"To  the  Council  Table";  but  the  Privy  Council  seems  to  have 
taken  no  action  on  it.  The  agitation  was  resumed  two  years 
later  with  slightly  more  effect.  The  Lords  appointed  a  Commis- 
sion, including  some  of  the  Justices  of  Middlesex  and  the  Alder- 
man of  the  Ward,  to  investigate  the  question  of  the  removal  of 
the  Blackfriars  theater  and  decide  on  what  recompense  should 
be  made  to  the  players.2  On  November  20,  1633,  the  Com- 
mission reported  that  no  agreement  could  be  reached  on  the 
amount  of  the  indemnity.  The  players  demanded  £21,000, 
the  Commissioners  valued  it  at  near  £3000,  and  the  parishioners 
offered  towards  the  removal  of  the  theater  £ioo.3 

Apparently  giving  up  this  plan  in  despair,  and  endeavoring 
to  remedy  the  evil  in  another  way,  the  Privy  Council,  two  days 
later,  issued  orders  stringently  regulating  traffic  to  and  from 
the  Blackfriars  playhouse.  No  coaches  were  to  be  allowed  to 
come  nearer  the  theater  than  "the  farther  side  of  St.  Paul's 
Churchyard  on  the  one  side,  and  Fleet  Conduit  on  the  other." 
The  Mayor  was  directed  to  enforce  this  regulation.4  Apparently 
the  new  rule  was  distasteful  to  the  players  and  their  audiences, 
and  at  a  council  meeting  on  December  29  it  was  materially 
modified.  "As  many  coaches  as  may  stand  within  the  Black- 
friars gate"  were  now  to  be  allowed  to  enter  and  stay  there,  or 
return  thither  at  the  end  of  the  play.5  As  the  King  was  present 
at  this  council  meeting,  it  has  been  conjectured  that  he  interceded 
on  behalf  of  his  players.6  A  letter  from  Garrard  to  Lord  Deputy 
Went  worth,  written  on  January  9,  1634,  remarks  on  the  new 
regulation  and  the  audience's  having  to  "trot  afoot  to  find  their 

1  The  petition  is  printed  at  length  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I, 
455—457.     There  is  an  abstract  in  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1631-1633,  219-221. 

2  Collier,  op.  cit.,  I,  476-477,  note;  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1633-1634,  266. 

3  Stale  Papers,  Dom.,  1633-1634,  293. 

*  Collier,  op.  cit.,  I,  478-479;  Remembrancia,  356,  357;  Slate  Papers,  Dom., 
^33-1634,  293. 

s  Collier,  op.  cit.,  I,  479.  ■  Ibid. 


204 

coaches."  "'Twas  kept  very  strictly  for  two  or  three  weeks," 
he  writes,  "but  now  I  think  it  is  disordered  again."  ' 

All  audiences  were  not  of  such  dignity  as  those  that  attended 
the  Blackfriars  theater,  and  at  times  the  authorities  still  had  to 
be  on  their  guard  against  disorder.  On  May  25, 1626,  for  exam- 
ple, the  Privy  Council  directed  the  Justices  of  Surrey  to  take 
precautions  against  riot  at  the  Globe.  "We  are  informed," 
write  the  Lords,  "that  on  Thursday  next  divers  loose  and  idle 
persons,  some  sailors  and  others,  have  appointed  to  meete  at 
the  Play-house  called  the  Globe,  to  see  a  play  (as  is  pretended), 
but  their  end  is  thereby  to  disguise  some  routous  and  riotous 
action."  The  Justices  are  therefore  commanded  to  permit  no 
performance  on  that  day,  and  also  to  "have  that  strength  about 
you  as  you  shall  think  sufficient  for  the  suppressing  of  any  in- 
solencies,  or  other  mutinous  intentions."  2 

In  the  stage  history  of  the  period  there  are  a  few  other  cases 
to  be  considered,  connected  with  the  authorization,  or  proposed 
authorization,  of  playhouses  about  London.  There  were  several 
ineffectual  attempts  to  secure  permission  for  a  theater  in  Lin- 
coln's Inn  Fields.  Some  time  in  James'  reign  the  Prince's 
company  sought  a  license  for  such  a  playhouse ;  but  eleven 
Justices  of  the  Peace  certified  that  the  place  was  inconvenient.3 
In  1620  John  Cotton,  John  Williams,  and  Thomas  Dixon  were 
slightly  more  successful.  King  James  issued  orders  for  a  patent 
granting  them  permission  to  erect  an  amphitheater  in  Lincoln's 
Inn  Fields ;  but  finding  that  some  of  the  clauses  seemed  to  give 
them  greater  liberty,  "both  in  the  point  of  building  and  using 
of  exercises,"  than  was  intended,  he  stayed  the  grant  at  the  Privy 
Seal,  and  ordered  its  terms  modified.4  Apparently  in  conse- 
quence of  this  difficulty,  the  writ  was  never  issued.  In  Charles' 
reign  Williams  and  Cotton  again  sought  a  patent.     After  some 

'Strafford  Letters,  I,  175,  quoted  in  Wheatley  and  Cunningham,  London 
Past  and  Present,  I,  200. 

2  Extract  from  the  Council  Register,  printed  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic 
Poetry,  I,  445-446,  note. 

8  See  the  Lord  Chancellor's  letter  of  September  28,  1626,  printed  in  Collier, 
op.  cit.,  I,  444-445- 

4  See  James'  letter  to  the  Privy  Council,  September  29,  1620,  printed  in 
Collier,  op.  cit.,  I,  407-408,  and  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  56-57. 


205 

consideration  the  Lord  Chancellor,  on  September  28,  1626, 
reported  against  the  proposed  grant.  It  was,  he  declared, 
different  from  that  suggested  in  1620,  which  provided  for  a 
theater  that  was  to  be  principally  for  martial  exercises  and 
"extraordinary  shows  and  solemnities,"  whereas  this  proposed 
house  would  probably  be  devoted  only  to  common  plays  and 
sports.  Moreover,  the  monopoly  awarded  in  the  power  to 
restrain  all  other  shows  on  one  day  in  the  week  was  much  more 
extensive  than  that  formerly  suggested.  In  view  of  these  argu- 
ments and  of  the  fact  that  there  were  already  too  many  buildings 
in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  the  Lord  Chancellor  advised  against  the 
patent,  which  was  evidently  never  issued.1 

The  French  comedians  who  visited  London  in  1635  were 
apparently  more  successful  in  carrying  out  plans  for  a  theater. 
They  performed  for  some  time  at  the  Cockpit,  in  Drury  Lane,  and 
then  secured  a  royal  warrant  authorizing  them  to  construct 
another  theater  in  the  same  street,  —  or  rather  to  adapt  for  that 
purpose  an  existing  building.  The  following  note  in  a  manu- 
script book  in  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  records  informs  us  of 
this. 

"18  April  1635:  His  Majesty  hath  commanded  me  to  signify  his 
royal  pleasure,  that  the  French  comedians  (having  agreed  with  Mon- 
sieur le  Febure)  may  erect  a  stage,  scaffolds,  and  seats,  and  all  other 
accommodations,  which  shall  be  convenient,  and  act  and  present  in- 
terludes and  stage  plays,  at  his  house,  in  Drury  Lane,  during  his 
Majesty's  pleasure,  without  any  disturbance,  hindrance,  or  interrup- 
tion. And  this  shall  be  to  them,  and  M.  le  Febure,  and  to  all  others, 
a  sufficient  discharge,  &c."2 

Sir  Henry  Herbert's  Office  Book  gives  us  further  information 
on  the  subject.  On  May  5,  1635,  he  records  the  grant  of  the 
foregoing  warrant  to  Josias  d'Aunay,  Hurfries  de  Lau,  and  others, 
to  "builde  a  playhouse  in  the  manage-house."  This,  says  Her- 
bert, "was  done  accordinglye  by  my  advise  and  allowance." 

One  other  authorization  of  a  proposed  theater  remains  to  be 
noted.     On  March  26, 1639,  D'Avenant  obtained  a  patent  under 

1  See  the  Chancellor's  letter,  printed  in  Collier,  op.  cit.,  I,  444-445. 

7  Chalmers,  Apology,  506-507,  note.  '  1S21  Variorum,  III,  122,  note. 


206 

the  Great  Seal,  permitting  him  to  construct  a  theater  within  the 
City  of  London,  upon  a  plot  of  ground  adjoining  the  Three  Kings 
Ordinary  in  Fleet  Street,  already  allotted  to  him,  or  upon  any 
other  which  may  be  assigned  by  the  Commissioners  for  Build- 
ing; and  on  certain  conditions  to  give  performances  therein.1 
In  an  indenture  dated  October  2,  1639,  D'Avenant  declares  that 
the  site  in  Fleet  Street  has  been  found  inconvenient  and  unfit, 
and  pledges  himself  not  to  build  on  any  other  plot  without  further 
authorization.2  Just  why  the  plan  for  this  theater  was  given 
up  is  not  apparent.  D'Avenant's  appointment,  on  June  27, 
1640,  to  take  charge  of  the  Cockpit,  perhaps  prevented  his 
further  search  for  a  site  for  a  new  playhouse.3 

In  concluding  this  account  of  governmental  regulations  deal- 
ing with  the  London  stage,  it  seems  useful  to  summarize  some 
of  the  chief  lines  of  legislation,  —  apart  from  the  main  system 
of  licensing  and  censorship  which  we  have  considered  in  previous 
chapters.  These  minor  features  have  been  touched  on  from  time 
to  time  in  the  course  of  the  present  section  and  the  preceding 
one,  but  may  now  be  assembled  in  clearer  order. 

A  notable  custom  prevailing  to  a  considerable  extent  during 
Elizabeth's  reign  was  the  taxation  of  the  players  for  the  benefit 
of  the  sick  and  the  poor.  Probably  such  contributions  were 
first  offered  by  the  actors,  as  an  inducement  to  the  local  officials 
to  permit  them  to  perform.  In  the  letter  written  by  the  London 
government  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain  on  March  2,  1574,  disap- 
proving of  the  proposal  of  a  licensing  patent  empowering  the 
patentee  to  authorize  playing  places  in  the  City,  the  municipal 
officials  remark  that  similar  requests  have  been  made  before,  and 
that  the  petitioners  have  offered  in  return  large  contributions 
"for  the  relief  of  the  poor  in  hospitals."  4  Probably  the  players 
had  already  made  such  payments;  for  in  the  city  ordinance  of 
December  6,  1574,  provision  is  made  that  all  owners  of  licensed 
playing  places  shall  contribute  regularly  for  the  use  of  the  poor  in 

1 1821  Variorum,  III,  93-95.     See  above,  p.  43. 

2  Ibid.,  520-522,  note;    Collier,  op.  cit.,  II,  28-29. 

3  Chalmers,  Apology,  519,  note. 

*  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  23-24.     See  above,  p.  154. 


207 

hospitals,  or  of  the  poor  of  the  City  visited  with  sickness,  such 
sums  as  may  be  agreed  upon  by  the  Mayor  and  the  Aldermen 
on  the  one  part,  and  the  licensed  householder  on  the  other.  All 
fines  and  forfeitures  collected  for  offenses  against  this  act  arc  to 
be  devoted  to  the  same  purpose.1 

The  practice  seems  to  have  continued  to  some  extent  through- 
out the  sixteenth  century.  In  1594  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
company,  seeking  permission  to  play  at  the  Cross  Keys,  offered 
to  contribute  to  the  parish  poor.2  In  1600  such  payments  from 
the  Bankside  theaters  were  ordered  by  the  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, the  Bishop  of  London,  and  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  as 
we  learn  from  the  entry  in  the  Parish  Register  of  St.  Saviour's 
referring  to  the  "tithes  of  the  playhouses"  to  be  paid  by  the 
players  and  "money  for  the  poor."  3  Finally,  in  the  same  year, 
when  seeking  the  approval  of  the  residents  of  Finsbury  for  the 
erection  of  the  new  Fortune  theater,  the  managers  offered  to  con- 
tribute liberally  to  the  parish  poor.4  I  have  found  no  further 
references  to  this  practice  in  and  about  London.  Probably 
when  the  players  and  the  playing  places  were  authorized  by  royal 
warrant,  and  there  was  no  longer  any  necessity  of  placating  the 
local  officials  and  residents,  the  custom  died  out.5 

There  is  visible  during  this  period  only  a  slight  germ  of  the 
modern  building  and  fire  laws  which  apply  particularly  to 
theaters.  The  municipal  authorities  frequently  refer  to  the 
danger  to  the  audience  caused  by  weak  buildings  and  scaffolds. 
In  the  city  ordinance  of  December  6,  1574,  there  is  a  provision 
requiring  that  the  playing  places  must  be  approved  and  licensed 
by  the  Mayor  and  the  Aldermen,  and  the  owner  put  on  bond.6 
It  was  perhaps  intended  that  the  construction  of  the  temporary 
scaffoldings  and  stages  should  be  inspected  and  passed  upon. 
But  there  is  no  indication  that  such  supervision  was  regularly 
exercised. 

There  was  some  attempt  to  regulate  the  hours  of  performances. 

1  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  30.     See  above,  p.  158.     2  See  above,  p.  182-183. 

3  Chalmers,  Apology,  405.     See  above,  p.  60. 

*  Henslowe  Papers,  50-51.     See  above,  p.  190. 

1  The  Long  Parliament  adopted  a  modification  of  it.     See  below,  p.  226. 

8  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  29.     See  above,  pp.  157-158. 


208 

In  the  earliest  enactments  of  this  kind  the  players  were  forbidden 
to  act  during  the  time  of  Divine  Service  on  Sundays  and  Holy 
Days,  — as  in  the  royal  patent  to  Leicester's  company  in  1574 
and  the  municipal  ordinance  of  December  in  the  same  year.1 
In  1582,  when  the  Privy  Council  suggested  that  performances 
should  be  allowed  after  Evening  Prayer  on  Holy  Days,  the 
Mayor  objected  to  the  rule,  protesting  that  it  would  delay  the 
action  of  the  plays  to  a  very  inconvenient  time  of  night,  espe- 
cially for  servants  and  children.2  The  regulation  seems  to  have 
been  established,  nevertheless;  but  the  dangers  involved  in  the 
audience's  returning  to  their  homes  after  dark  continued  to  dis- 
turb the  municipal  authorities.  In  the  "Remedies"  which  they 
proposed  in  1584,  they  included  the  rule,  "That  no  playeng  be  on 
holydaies,  but  after  evening  prayer,  nor  any  received  into  the 
auditorie  till  after  evening  prayer";  and  they  added,  "That  no 
playeng  be  in  the  dark,  nor  continue  any  such  time  but  as  any 
of  the  auditorie  may  returne  to  their  dwellings  in  London  before 
sonne  set,  or  at  least  before  it  be  dark."  3  To  avoid  the  danger 
involved  in  such  late  performances,  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
company  offered  as  an  inducement  to  the  City,  in  the  autumn 
of  1594,  that  they  would  begin  at  two  o'clock  and  finish  between 
four  and  five,  instead  of  commencing  at  four,  as  heretofore.4 

In  the  traveling  license  issued  to  Lord  Strange's  company  in 
1593,  they  are  forbidden  to  act  during  the  "accustomed  times  of 
Divine  Prayers";5  but  this  provision  was  not  included  in  the 
royal  patents  issued  by  the  Stuarts.  To  what  extent,  if  at  all, 
the  regulation  continued,  I  have  not  been  able  to  ascertain. 
There  were  certainly  performances  during  Divine  Service  on 
some  occasions.  Among  the  objections  against  Rosseter's 
Blackfriars  theater,  in  16 15,  is  included  the  fact  that  it  would 
disturb  the  congregation  in  the  adjoining  church  during  Divine 
Service  upon  week-days.8  And  in  the  order  of  1619,  suppress- 
ing Burbage's  Blackfriars  playhouse,  mention  is  made  of  the 
disturbance  caused  by  the  coaches  to  the  minister  and  people  at 

1  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  26,  29-30.     See  above,  pp.  34,  158. 
'  Remembrancia,  351.     See  above,  p.  165.  3  See  above,  p.  174. 

♦See  above,  p.  182.  5  Acts,  XXIV,  212.    See  above,  p.  34- 

•  1S21  Variorum,  III,  493-494,  note.     See  above,  p.  199. 


209 

public  prayers  in  the  afternoon.1  The  inhabitants  of  the  pre- 
cinct, in  their  petition  for  relief,  had  complained  that  the  crush 
of  vehicles  inconvenienced  them  almost  daily  in  winter  time, 
not  excepting  Lent,  from  one  or  two  o'clock  till  five  at  night.2 
What  further  attempt,  if  any,  was  made  to  regulate  the  hours 
of  performances  does  not  appear. 

Throughout  our  period  there  was  almost  continual  agitation 
about  performances  on  Sunday.  As  early  as  1543  we  have 
observed  an  apparent  objection  to  some  sorts  of  shows  on  that 
day ; s  but  in  general  Sunday  was,  during  the  earlier  part  of 
Elizabeth's  reign,  the  day  especially  selected  for  performances. 
The  municipal  ordinance  of  December,  1574,  remarks  that  plays 
are  "chiefly  used"  on  Sundays  and  Holy  Days,4  and  merely  for- 
bids their  presentation  during  the  time  of  Divine  Service.  Gos- 
son,  in  his  Schoole  of  Abuse,  published  in  1579,  notes  that  the 
players,  because  they  are  allowed  to  act  every  Sunday,  "  make 
four  or  five  Sundays,  at  least,  every  week";5  and  the  Puritan 
denunciations  of  the  usual  Sunday  performances  are  frequent  at 
this  early  period.6  The  rise  of  this  strong  disapproval  soon  pro- 
duced orders  forbidding  plays  on  Sunday.  On  December  3, 
1 58 1,  when  the  Privy  Council  asked  the  Mayor  to  admit  certain 
companies  to  the  City,  they  required  that  the  players  be  not 
allowed  to  perform  on  the  "  Sabbath  Day,"  —  a  term  which  shows 
the  spread  of  Puritan  ideas.7  Sometime  during  this  same  year 
or  earlier,  the  Lord  Mayor  had  evidently  issued  orders  against 
Sunday  performances,  as  we  find  from  a  letter  written  by  one 
Henry  Berkley  "respecting  some  of  his  men  committed  to  prison 
for  playing  on  the  Sabbath  Day,  contrary  to  the  Lord  Mayor's 
orders,  which  were  unknown  to  them."  8  In  1582,  again,  the 
Lords  suggest  that  the  privileged  companies  be  restrained  from 
playing  on  Sunday.9     Of  course  the  rule  was  not  rigidly  and 

1  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  475.     See  above,  p.  202. 

J  Remembrancia,  355.  3  See  above,  p.   151-152. 

4  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  27.     See  above,  p.  157. 

1  Published  by  the  Shakspere  Society,  II,  31. 

•See,  for  example,  the  title-page  of  Northbrooke's  Treatise  (1577);  Stock- 
wood's  Sermon  of  1578,  cited  in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  348;  and  the 
citations  in  1821  Variorum,  III,  145-146,  note. 

7  Acts,  XIII,  269.  8  Abstract  in  Athenceum,  January  23,  1869. 

•  Acts,  XIII,  404.     See  above,  p.  164. 


210 

consistently  enforced.  The  Paris  Garden  disaster,  in  January, 
1583,  occurred  at  a  Sunday  performance,  and  led  to  renewed 
edicts  from  Privy  Council  and  Mayor  against  such  profana- 
tion of  the  Sabbath.1  Even  the  favored  Queen's  company, 
according  to  the  Lords'  order  of  December  1,  1583,  was  not 
to  be  allowed  to  perform  on  that  day.2  The  "Remedies"  pro- 
posed by  the  city  in  1584  of  course  included  a  law  against 
acting  on  Sunday.3  Complaints  of  the  non-enforcement  of  the 
rule  are  rather  frequent.  The  inhabitants  of  Southwark 
protested  in  1587  against  the  Sabbath  performances  in  the 
Liberty  of  the  Clink,  and  the  Privy  Council  exhorted  the 
Justices  of  Middlesex  and  Surrey  to  prevent  such  occurrences.4 
In  1 59 1  the  Lords  called  the  attention  of  the  Mayor  to  the  neglect 
of  their  order  against  "plays  on  the  Sabbath  Day."5  Their 
restrictive  regulations  of  1600  included  the  same  rule.8 

In  reviewing  the  history  of  national  regulation  under  the 
Stuarts,  we  have  already  considered  the  royal  proclamations  and 
the  statutes  which  from  1603  on  forbade  Sunday  plays.7  The 
law  was  not  rigidly  enforced,  any  more  than  the  others  that  we 
have  investigated;  and  the  Puritan  complaints  of  its  violation, 
from  Pyrnne  and  others,  are  fairly  frequent.8  The  royal  patents 
apparently  contain  no  provision  about  Sunday  performances. 
It  is  notable  that  the  "Letters  of  Assistance"  granted  in  1618 
by  the  Privy  Council  to  John  Daniel  for  his  provincial  children's 
company  provides  that  they  may  play,  "the  tymes  of  Devine 
Service  on  the  Saboth  daies  only  excepted,"  9  —  seeming  to 
imply  that  they  may  perform  at  the  other  hours  on  Sunday. 

The  rule  against  performances  in  Lent  was  apparently  enacted 
rather  early.  It  is  not  included  in  the  London  ordinance  of 
1574.  But  on  March  13,  1579,  the  Privy  Council  ordered  the 
Mayor  and  the  Middlesex  Justices  to  stop  all  plays  "during  this 
time  of  Lent,"  and  to  notify  the  Lords  what  players  had  been 
performing  since  the  beginning  of  the  Lenten  season.     This 


1  See  above,  pp.  165-166.  2  See  above,  p.  168.  3  See  above,  p.  174. 

4  Acts,  XV,  271.     See  above,  p.  175. 

5  Acts,  XXI,  324-325.      See  above,  p.  177.  9  See  above,  p.  192. 

7  See  above,  pp.  20-21.  8  See  Thompson,  Puritans  and  Stage,  188. 

9  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  50. 


211 

would  seem  to  imply  that  the  actors  had  been  violating  an  already 
existing  law.  The  Council  commanded  also  that  this  order  "be 
observed  hereafter  yearly  in  the  Lent  time."  l  The  rule  was 
supposed  to  be  in  force,  I  imagine,  during  all  the  rest  of  the 
period.  It  was  included  in  the  restrictive  regulations  of  June  22, 
1600.2  Occasionally  we  find  in  the  Council  Register  entries  of 
orders  to  the  magistrates  to  stop  plays  in  the  Lenten  season,  or  to 
permit  them,  "Lent  being  past."  3  The  players'  breach  of  the 
law  in  161 5  has  already  been  noticed,  and  the  practice  inaugu- 
rated by  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  at  least  as  early  as  161 7,  of 
selling  dispensations  for  performances  during  the  prohibited 
period.4  The  Lenten  plays  complained  of  by  the  inhabitants  of 
Blackfriars  in  1619,5  were  probably  a  result  of  the  licenses  pur- 
chased from  Buc  by  the  King's  company. 

One  of  the  most  important  series  of  regulations  affecting  the 
London  stage  dealt  with  performances  in  time  of  plague.  The 
danger  of  infection  caused  by  assemblages  at  plays  was  early 
recognized  by  the  City  and  by  the  royal  government.  Bishop 
Grindal,  in  1563,  as  we  have  seen,  requested  the  suppression  of 
the  players  for  a  year  on  this  account.6  In  subsequent  years  we 
have  observed  frequent  complaints  of  this  danger  and  frequent 
prohibition  of  plays  because  of  the  great  prevalence  of  the  disease 
or  the  fear  of  its  development  in  the  hot  season.  There  seems 
to  have  been  at  first  no  definite  rule  about  the  time  of  such  sup- 
pression. When  the  plague  increased  to  a  considerable  degree, 
or  the  summer  promised  to  be  a  dangerous  one,  performances 
were  sometimes  ordered  stopped  entirely  until  autumn.  Just 
when  the  first  attempt  was  made  to  regulate  this  matter  accord- 
ing to  a  definite  system,  to  provide  that  plays  should  stop  when 
the  death-rate  rose  to  a  certain  figure,  does  not  clearly  appear. 
The  first  suggestion  of  this  sort  that  I  have  noted  is  the  proposal 
apparently  made  by  the  Queen's  company  in  1584,  —  that  plays 
in  London  should  be  allowed  whenever  the  total  number  of 
deaths  from  the  plague  should  fall  as  low  as  fifty  a  week.  In  their 
reply  to  this  the  city  authorities  discuss  the  "permission  of  plays 

1  Acts,  XI,  73-74.  2  See  above,  p.  192. 

3  Acts,  XXXI,  218;   XXXII,  s«.  «See  above,  p.  75. 

6  See  above,  p.  209.  •  See  above,  p.  152. 


212 

upon  the  fewness  of  those  that  die  in  any  week"  in  a  manner  which 
seems  to  imply  that  the  idea  is  a  new  one.  On  the  whole  they 
do  not  approve  of  it,  and  they  point  out  that  the  report  of  deaths 
from  the  plague  is  not  a  reliable  indication  of  the  prevalence  of  the 
disease.  If  any  such  regulation  must  be  adopted,  they  advocate 
a  much  more  stringent  one.  The  ordinary  deaths  in  London, 
when  there  is  no  plague,  amount  weekly  to  "between  forty  and 
fifty  and  commonly  under  forty."  Now  the  city  officials  pro- 
pose that  when  the  total  deaths  in  London  from  all  diseases 
shall  for  two  or  three  weeks  together  be  under  fifty  per  week, 
plays  may  be  performed,  and  may  continue  so  long  as  the  mor- 
tality remains  under  that  figure.1  In  the  "Remedies"  which 
they  drew  up  at  this  time,  they  embodied  this  rule.2  What 
specific  regulation,  if  any,  the  Privy  Council  adopted  as  a  result 
of  this  discussion,  we  do  not  know.  Probably  it  was  a  compro- 
mise one. 

In  1593  a  change  was  made  in  the  plague  reports.  It  had 
become  apparent  that  the  weekly  certificate  of  the  deaths  from 
the  disease  within  the  City  did  not  give  sufficient  information  as 
to  the  progress  of  the  infection,  and  it  was  therefore  ordered,  on 
August  4,  that  Westminster,  St.  Catherine's,  St.  Giles,  Southwark, 
and  Shoreditch  should  be  included  in  the  bills  of  mortality.3 
This  increase  of  the  area  covered  in  the  weekly  certificate  should 
be  borne  in  mind  when  one  compares  the  regulation  later 
adopted  with  the  very  liberal  one  suggested  by  the  players  in 
1584. 

The  royal  patent  to  the  King's  company  in  1603  —  one  of  the 
worst  plague  years  —  provides  merely  that  they  may  perform 
"when  the  infection  of  the  plague  shall  decrease."  4  But  the 
Queen's  company  patent,  probably  granted  in  the  same  year,  and 
the  Privy  Council  order  of  April  9,  1604,5  lay  down  an  explicit 
rule,  —  that  plays  may  be  given  except  when  the  deaths  from 
the  plague  amount  to  more  than  thirty  weekly  "within  the  City 
of  London  and  the  Liberties  thereof."  This  may  have  been  the 
law  for  some  years  before  James'  accession,  and  it  was  certainly 

1  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  215-216.     See  above,  p.  173. 

2  See  above,  p.  174.  3  Acts,  XXIV,  442,  443. 

4  See  above,  p.  37.  »  Printed  in  full  in  Hcnslowe  Papers,  61-62. 


213 

the  law  for  some  time  thereafter.  Mr.  Fleay's  assumption  that 
forty  was  the  specified  number  invalidates  his  proof  of  the  exact- 
ness with  which  the  rule  was  enforced  in  1593.1 

There  is  no  provision  concerning  the  plague  in  the  royal  patents 
of  1606,  1609,  1610,  and  1613.  The  King's  company  patent  of 
1619  contains  the  first  mention  of  forty  as  the  legal  number. 
The  players  may  perform  "when  the  infection  of  the  plague  shall 
not  weekly  exceed  the  number  of  forty  by  the  certificate  of  the 
Lord  Mayor  of  London."  2  The  same  provision  is  contained 
in  the  patent  granted  to  this  company  in  1625.3  Possibly  this 
number  remained  the  legal  one  throughout  the  period;  or  it 
may  have  been  changed  to  fifty.  Two  entries  in  Herbert's 
Office  Book  for  the  years  1636-1637  point  to  the  latter  as  the 
fixed  figure.  "At  the  increase  of  the  plague  to  4  within  the 
citty  and  54  in  all.  —  This  day  the  12  May,  1636,  I  received  a 
warrant  from  my  lord  Chamberlen  for  the  suppressing  of 
playes  and  shews."  And  he  later  notes  that  on  February  23, 
1637,  "the  bill  of  the  plague  made  the  number  at  forty  foure, 
upon  which  decrease  the  king  gave  the  players  their  liberty, 
and  they  began  the  24  Feb."  *  On  March  1,  according  to 
Collier's  extracts  from  the  Council  Register,  on  the  increase 
of  the  infection,  plays  were  suppressed  again,  and  were  not 
permitted  until  October  2  following.5  This  does  not  harmonize 
with  Mr.  Fleay's  theory  of  the  number  specified  and  the  exactness 
with  which  the  law  was  enforced,  for  his  tables  show  that  the 
plague  deaths  were  over  forty  from  the  beginning  of  1637  until 
August  17,  when  they  fell  below  that  number  and  remained  there 
until  the  next  summer.6 

Judging  from  the  extreme  laxness  with  which  most  laws  seem 
to  have  been  enforced,  we  should  indeed  be  chary  of  believing 
that  the  plague  rule  was  followed  with  precision.  Probably  the 
players  often  disobeyed  it,  as  did  the  Cockpit  company  in  May, 

1  He  has  compared,  he  says,  the  dates  of  the  performances  in  Henslowe's 
Diary  with  the  plague  tables  for  that  year.  There  are  no  other  tables  extant 
for  Elizabeth's  reign.  (London  Stage,  162.)  For  a  statement  of  Fleay's  error, 
and  references  to  mentions  of  the  rule  of  thirty  in  the  literature  of  the  period,  see 
Thorndike,  Influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  Shakspere,  i4_I5- 

1  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  51.         3  Ibid.,  58.  4  1S31  Variorum,  III,  239. 

1  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  II,  15-16.         8  Lmdon  Stage,  162. 


214 

1637.1  And  apparently  the  Master  of  the  Revels  sometimes 
secured  for  them  some  relaxation  of  it.2  That  it  was  by  no  means 
a  regulation  operating  with  mechanical  exactness,  but  was  subject 
to  variation  according  to  different  influences  and  personalities, 
and  the  will  of  various  high  officials,  appears  from  an  interesting 
account,  given  in  a  letter  from  Garrard  to  Wentworth,  of  a  meet- 
ing of  the  Privy  Council.  It  deals  with  the  suppression  of  plays 
in  the  year  we  have  just  been  considering,  —  1637.  And  with 
this  illustration  of  the  conflict  of  jurisdictions  and  the  way  in 
which  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  was  sometimes  determined, 
we  may  conclude  our  account  of  the  London  regulations. 

"Upon  a  little  abatement  of  the  plague,  even  in  the  first  week  of 
Lent,  the  players  set  up  their  bills,  and  began  to  play  in  the  Black- 
fryars  and  other  houses.  But  my  Lord  of  Canterbury  quickly  reduced 
them  to  a  better  order;  for  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  Council  his 
Grace  complained  of  it  to  the  King,  declared  the  solemnity  of  Lent, 
the  unfitness  of  that  liberty  to  be  given,  both  in  respect  to  the  time 
and  the  sickness,  which  was  not  extinguished  in  the  City,  concluding 
that  if  his  Majesty  did  not  command  him  to  the  contrary  he  would 
lay  them  by  the  heels  if  they  played  again.  My  Lord  Chamberlain 
[Pembroke  and  Montgomery]  stood  up  and  said  that  my  Lord's  Grace 
and  he  served  one  God  and  one  King;  that  he  hoped  his  Grace  would 
not  meddle  in  his  place  no  more  than  he  did  in  his;  that  the  players 
were  under  his  command.  My  Lord's  Grace  replied  that  what  he 
had  spoken  in  no  way  touched  upon  his  place,  etc.,  still  concluding 
as  he  had  done  before,  which  he  did  with  some  solemnity  reiterate 
once  or  twice.  So  the  King  put  an  end  to  the  business  by  command- 
ing my  Lord  Chamberlain  that  they  should  play  no  more."  3 

1  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  II,  15-16.  J  See  above,  p.  76. 

'Strafford  Letters,  II,  56;    quoted  in  Wheatley  and  Cunningham,  London 
Past  and  Present,  I,  200-201.     This  letter  is  dated  March  23,  1637. 


CHAPTER  VI 
The  Puritan  Victory 

The  day  of  triumph  had  now  come  for  the  party  at  whom 
the  players  had  so  long  gibed  and  scoffed.  The  term  "  Puritan" 
is,  of  course,  a  very  broad  and  vague  one.  Coined  about  1564, 
the  word  was  applied  at  first  to  the  men  who  sought  the  purest 
form  of  worship  —  religlo  purissima  —  by  reform  from  within 
the  Church  of  England,  —  at  first  chiefly  in  matters  of  form  and 
ceremony,  and  later  in  some  points  of  Calvinistic  doctrine.  As 
the  extension  of  the  term  broadened,  it  acquired  a  political  sig- 
nificance, denoting  those  who  were  'contending  for  the  principles 
of  civil  liberty  and  who,  from  the  latter  part  of  Elizabeth's  reign, 
controlled  the  House  of  Commons,  —  the  opponents  of  the  court 
party.  It  was  even  loosely  applied  to  all  men  who  protested 
against  the  immorality  and  corruption  in  church  and  state,  the 
"life  of  practical  heathenism,"  as  Gardiner  calls  it,  which  they 
saw  around  them,  and  who  sought  religious  reform  and  the  politi- 
cal rights  of  the  people.  It  came,  moreover,  to  denote  the  some- 
what ascetic  type  of  mind,  intensely  concerned  with  things  moral 
and  religious,  with  which  we  now  most  often  associate  the  word.1 

In  the  early  years  of  its  development  Puritanism  had  among 
its  representatives  men  of  high  rank  in  church  and  state,  such 
as  Archbishop  Grindal  and  the  Earl  of  Leicester.  But  as  it 
intensified  to  a  rather  extreme  type,  and  the  line  between  the 
Court  and  the  popular  party  became  more  sharply  drawn,  its 
adherents  were  found  chiefly  among  the  middle  class  and  the 
poor,  —  the  tradesmen  in  the  towns  and  the  small  proprietors  in 
the  country.  In  these  sections  of  society  it  spread  with  rapidity 
and  strength,  so  that  early  in  James'  reign  it  was  probably  the 
temper  of  the  majority  of  Englishmen. 

'See  Campbell,  The  Puritan,  I,  xxvii;  II,  237  ff.;  Gardiner,  History  of 
England,  III,  241-242. 

215 


216 

The  great  political  party  loosely  called  Puritan,  or  Parlia- 
mentary, or  Roundhead,  of  course  included  "Puritans"  of  all 
degrees  and  types.  Their  attitude  towards  the  drama,  as  tow- 
ards other  questions,  varied  considerably;  but  on  the  whole 
they  were  opposed  to  it.  Some  were  opposed  merely  to  its 
abuses,  as  exemplified  on  the  contemporary  stage;  some  were 
opposed  to  it  altogether  and  absolutely,  as  essentially  sinful  and 
irreligious ;  all  were  inclined  to  discipline  it  with  a  strong  hand, 
when  opportunity  should  arise. 

The  City  of  London  was  one  of  the  great  centers  of  Puritanism. 
The  attitude  towards  plays  taken  by  the  municipal  government 
during  the  last  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  largely 
caused,  as  we  have  seen,  by  various  economic  and  social  consid- 
erations. But  it  also  shows  strongly  at  times  the  moral  and  reli- 
gious view  of  the  stage  characteristic  of  the  extreme  Puritan, 
and  seems  to  indicate  that  the  wealthier  burgess  class  was 
during  these  years  decidedly  Puritan  in  its  convictions.  The 
new  party  must,  of  course,  have  increased  pretty  steadily  through- 
out the  period,  for  at  the  opening  of  the  Civil  War  the  capital 
was  practically  solid  for  the  Parliamentary  side.1  But  there  are 
signs  that  Puritanism  in  respect  to  the  drama  did  not  spread  with 
steady  regularity  or  remain  firm  in  the  influential  burgess  class; 
that,  on  the  contrary,  the  antipathy  to  plays  grew  less  violent 
among  the  ruling  citizens  in  London.  As  the  playhouses  became 
less  disorderly  resorts,  and  were  frequented  by  a  better  class,  the 
opposition  of  the  municipal  officials,  we  have  seen,  largely  died 
out.  Under  James  and  Charles  it  is  evident  that  the  theaters 
appealed  rather  less  to  the  populace  and  became  to  a  greater 
extent  the  resort  of  fashionable  court  society.  The  wealthier 
citizens,  and  especially  their  wives,  when  inspired  by  any  desire 
to  ape  the  manners  of  the  court  set,  would  therefore  acquire  a 
taste  for  the  drama.  In  the  plays  of  the  period  there  are  fre- 
quent hits  at  the  eagerness  of  the  city  dames  to  get  admission 
to  the  court  masques.  Their  desire  to  participate  in  the  amuse- 
ments of  the  upper  class  could  be  more  easily  gratified  at  the 
theaters  of  the  better  sort. 

A  striking  indication  that  the  relation  between  the  City  and 

1  See  Sharpe,  London,  II,  173. 


217 

the  stage  at  this  period  was  not  always  one  of  open  warfare, 
and  the  attitude  of  the  municipal  officials  not  extremely  Puritanic, 
may  be  found  in  the  dramatic  character  of  many  of  the  Lord 
Mayor's  shows,  and  the  fact  that  prominent  playwrights  were 
hired  to  devise  them.  During  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  Munday,  Dekker,  Middleton,  Webster,  and  Hey  wood 
were  the  composers  of  these  pageants  that  ushered  in  the  new 
chief  magistrate  of  the  City,1  —  until  the  austere  Puritan  regime 
put  a  stop  to  the  shows  for  sixteen  years.2  Moreover,  the  dram- 
atist Middleton,  in  1620,  was  even  appointed  Chronologer  of 
London,3  and  was  succeeded  in  that  office  by  Jonson.4 

The  decline  in  the  puritanical  zeal  of  the  city  officials  was  noted 
and  lamented  in  Rawlidge's  Monster  Lately  Found  Out,  published 
in  1628.  The  author  named  plays  among  other  disgraces  of 
London,  and  commended  the  earlier  "pious  magistrates"  and 
"religious  senators"  for  their  zeal  in  urging  Elizabeth  and  her 
Council  to  suppress  the  stage.  Had  their  successors  followed 
their  worthy  example,  he  believed  sin  would  not  have  been  so 
rampant  in  the  city.5 

Though  the  more  prominent  and  influential  citizens  became 
in  many  cases  thus  lenient  towards  the  drama,  there  are  indica- 
tions of  the  spread  of  Puritan  ideas  among  the  populace.  An 
interesting  event  in  16 17  seems  to  show  that  even  the  appren- 
tices, formerly,  as  we  have  seen,  among  the  chief  frequenters 
of  performances,  were  beginning  to  turn  against  the  theater. 
The  London  prentices  had  long  practised  the  curious  custom 
of  attacking  and  demolishing  houses  of  ill  fame  on  Shrove  Tues- 
day, —  a  habit  to  which  the  drama  of  the  period  contains  many 
allusions.  On  Shrove  Tuesday  of  161 7,  during  some  especially 
active  rioting,  the  apprentices  extended  the  range  of  their  moral 
crusading  and  attempted  to  pull  down  the  Cockpit  theater, 
which  they  succeeded  in  damaging  to  a  considerable  extent. 

'See  Fleay,  London  Stage,  422;  and  Fairholt,  Lord  Mayors'  Pageants.  At 
the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  also,  from  at  least  1586  on,  such  pageants  were 
devised  at  times  by  prominent  playwrights.  The  incompleteness  of  the  records 
of  the  shows  for  these  years,  however,  makes  it  impossible  to  get  much  light 
on  the  relations  between  dramatists  and  officials  at  this  time. 

1  Fairholt,  op.  cit.,  62.  s  Bullen's  Middleton,  I,  1-lii. 

4  Castelain,  Ben  Jonson,  63,  65,  67.       '  Thompson,  Puritans  and  Stage,  144. 


218 

The  disorder  was  evidently  serious,  for  on  the  following  day  the 
Privy  Council  wrote  urgently  to  the  Lord  Mayor,  ordering 
rigorous  measures  against  the  offenders.1  And  a  year  later, 
learning  of  the  apprentices'  plan  to  renew  their  attack  on  the 
same  occasion,  and  pull  down  the  Red  Bull  as  well  as  the  Cockpit, 
the  Lords  commanded  the  Mayor  and  the  Justices  to  set  strong 
watches  to  keep  the  peace.2 

An  odd  ballad  on  the  Cockpit  attack  of  1617,  printed  by  Collier 
as  contemporary  with  this  affair,  but  perhaps  of  doubtful  au- 
thenticity, praises  the  moral  zeal  of  the  apprentices.3  One 
should  certainly  be  cautious  in  attributing  any  such  serious  mo- 
tive to  the  rioting.  It  does  seem  to  show,  however,  that  it  had 
now  become  usual,  in  some  sections  of  the  prentice  body 
at  least,  to  class  theaters  with  the  most  disreputable  resorts,  as 
fit  game  for  attack;  and  it  perhaps  indicates  some  spread  of 
opposition  to  the  playhouses  among  the  populace.  That  such 
opposition  must  have  been  growing,  as  the  city  developed  the 
adherence  to  the  Puritan  or  Parliamentary  party  which  it  showed 
at  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  seems  fairly  obvious. 

It  remains  to  summarize  very  briefly  the  Puritan  attack  on 
the  stage  that  culminated  in  the  Ordinances  of  the  Long  Parlia- 
ment. Developing  from  the  essentially  moral  tendency  of  the 
typical  Puritan  attitude  of  mind,  —  at  the  opposite  pole  from 
the  typical  tone  of  the  drama  of  the  period,  —  and  based  largely 
on  the  patristic  writings,  in  which  the  Church  Fathers  violently 
denounced  the  degenerate  Roman  stage,  the  opposition  to  the 
Elizabethan  drama  early  found  definite  expression.  From 
1576  on,  and  perhaps  before,  a  succession  of  vigorous  sermons 
by  non-conforming  clergymen,  at  Paul's  Cross  and  elsewhere, 
bitterly  assailed  the  evils  of  the  London  stage.4  Formal  liter- 
ary attacks  also  began  early.     The  period  during  which  these 

1  The  order  is  printed  in  Chalmers,  Apology,  466,  note;  and  in  182 1  Variorum, 
III,  495-496,  note. 

'  The  order  is  printed  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  394,  note. 

s  Collier,  op.  cit.,  I,  386  ff.  See  also  Mackay,  Songs  and  Ballads  of  the  London 
Prentices,  94-97. 

4  For  example,  White  in  1576,  Stockwood  in  1578,  Spark  in  1579,  Field  in 
1583,  etc.  See  Thompson,  Puritans  and  Stage,  passim,  and  Halliwell-Phillipps, 
Outlines,  368. 


219 

chiefly  flourished  was  the  decade  from  1577  to  1587,  —  including 
those  years  in  which  the  opposition  of  the  city  government  to 
plays  was  especially  intense.1  Northbrooke's  Treatise  in  1577, 
Gosson's  Schoolc  of  Abuse  in  1579,  .4  Second  and  Third  Blast 
of  Ret  rait  in  1580,  Gosson's  Playcs  Confuted  in  1582,  Stubbes' 
Anatomic  of  Abuses  in  1583,  and  Rankins'  Mirrour  of  Monsters 
in  1587 — to  name  only  the  most  prominent — reflect  the  bitter 
opposition  to  plays  felt  at  this  time.  During  the  next  quarter 
of  a  century  the  only  notable  contribution  to  the  controversy  was 
Rainolde's  Overthrow  of  Stage-Playes,  published  in  1599.  In 
the  second  decade  of  the  seventeenth  century,  however,  literary 
attacks  again  became  frequent.  Wither's  Abuses  Stript  and 
Wkipt  in  1613,  the  Refutation  of  Heywood's  Apology  for  Actors 
in  161 5,  the  Shorte  Treatise  Against  Stage-Playes  in  1625,  Raw- 
lidge's  Monster  Lately  Found  Out  in  1628, — all  these  renewed 
the  literary  onslaught  which  culminated  in  Prynne's  Histrio- 
Masiix,  published  in  1632,  a  summary  and  amplification  of 
all  previous  attacks. 

The  general  line  of  argument  followed  is  much  the  same  in  all 
^these  writings.  The  authors  rely  to  a  great  extent  on  authority. 
They  quote  texts  from  the  Bible  which  they  interpret  as  con- 
demning plays.  They  bring  to  bear  a  perfect  battery  of  quota- 
tions from  the  Church  Fathers  denouncing  the  stage.  They  cite 
the  classics,  —  chiefly  Plato's  banishing  of  poets  from  his  ideal 
commonwealth,  and  strangely  distorted  interpretations  of  Cicero 
and  others.  They  bring  forward  the  Roman  laws  against  actors 
and  the  legislation  of  Church  Councils^  They  condefhn  the 
sinfulness  of  appareling  boys  in  women's  clothes,  and  other 
features  of  the  contemporary  dramas/Most  convincingly  of  all, 
they  portray  the  evil  associations  of  the  theaters,  the  demoral- 
izing companions  whom  the  London  youth  there  meets,  the  inde- 
cency and  immorality  presented  upon  the  stage,  with  examples 
of  the  dire  effects  they  have  wrought.  Some  of  the  writers  — 
notably  Northbrooke,  the  earliest  —  do  not  condemn  plays  alto- 
gether, but  think  that  under  certain  circumstances  some  of  them, 
such  as  academic  plays,  are  permissible.  But  the  general  ten- 
dency is  to  forbid  them  utterly,  as  snares  of  the  Devil,  irreligious 

1  See  above,  p.  160. 


220 

and  sinful  abominations,  —  in  the  words  of  the  municipal  edict 
of  banishment,  "great  provoking  of  the  wrath  of  God,  the 
ground  of  all  plagues."  ^^^ 

A  characteristic  summary  of  the  Puritan  line  of  argument 
may  be  found  on  the  very  elaborate  title-page  of  Prynne's  His- 
trio-Mastix.2  "  Histrio-Mastix.  The  Players  Scourge,  or  Actors 
Tragaedie,  Divided  into  Two  Parts.  Wherein  it  is  largely  evi- 
denced, by  divers  Arguments,  by  the  concurring  Authorities 
and  Resolutions  of  sundry  texts  of  Scripture ;  of  the  whole  Primi- 
tive Church,  both  under  the  Law  and  Gospell;  of  55  Synodes 
and  Councels;  of  71  Fathers  and  Christian  Writers,  before  the 
yeare  of  our  Lord  1200;  of  above  150  foraigne  and  domestique 
Protestant  and  Popish  Authors,  since ;  of  40  Heathen  Philoso- 
phers, Historians,  Poets ;  of  many  Heathen,  many  Christian  Na- 
tions, Republiques,  Emperors,  Princes,  Magistrates;  of  sundry 
Apostolicall,  Canonicall,  Imperiall  Constitutions;  and  of  our 
owne  English  Statutes,  Magistrates,  Universities,  Writers, 
Preachers.  That  popular  Stage-playes  (the  very  Pompes  of  the 
Divell  which  we  renounce  in  Baptisme,  if  we  beleeve  the  Fathers) 
are  sinfull,  heathenish,  lewde,  ungodly  Spectacles,  and  most 
pernicious  Corruptions;  condemned  in  all  ages,  as  intolerable 
Mischiefes  to  Churches,  to  Republickes,  to  the  manners,  mindes 
and  soules  of  men.  And  that  the  Profession  of  Play-poets,  of 
Stage  players ;  together  with  the  penning,  acting  and  frequenting 
of  Stage-playes,  are  unlawfull,  infamous  and  misbeseeming 
Christians.  All  pretences  to  the  contrary  are  here  likewise 
fully  answered;  and  the  unlawfulness  of  acting,  of  beholding 
Academicall  Enterludes,  briefly  discussed ;  besides  sundry  other 
particulars  concerning  Dancing,  Dicing,  Health-drinking,  &c. 
of  which  the  Table  will  informe  you.  By  William  Prynne,  an 
Vtter-Barrester  of  Lincolnes  Inne." 

The  attitude  taken  by  the  Puritans  towards  the  statutes  regu- 
lating players  is  from  our  point  of  view  especially  important. 
Inspired  by  the  Roman  and  the  Canonical  laws  against  actors,3 

1  See  above,  p.  164. 

2  Dated  1633,  but  published  1632.  For  an  account  of  the  book,  see  Thomp- 
son, Puritans  and  Stage,  chap.  15,  and  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  III, 
240  ff.  s  See  above,  p.  21. 


221 

the  Puritans  from  the  first  seem  to  have  seized  eagerly  upon  the 
mention  of  players  in  the  statutory  definition  of  rogues  and  vaga-  ( 
bonds,  and  to  have  assumed  that  this  branded  them  all  as  of 
that  outcast  status.  Referring  to  the  Qtfeen's  company  in  1584, 
the  pick,  of  the  "quality,"  the  London  officials,  as  we  have  seen, 
remarked  that  "if  they  were  not  her  Majesty's  servants,"  they 
would  "  by  their  profession  be  rogues."  !  An  excellent  summary 
of  this  view  may  be  found  in  Prynne.  He  cites  the  mention 
of  players  in  the  Statutes  14  Elizabeth,  cap.  5,  and  39  Elizabeth, 
cap.  4,  and  the  provision  for  licensing  them,2  —  "which  li- 
cense," he  asserts,  "exempted  them  onely  from  the  punishment, 
not  from  the  infamy,  or  stile  of  Rogues  and  Vacabonds."  Since 
these  laws  did  not  prove  effectual  in  suppressing  plays,  Prynne 
goes  on  to  say,  the  Statute  1  James  I,  cap.  7,  enacted  that  no 
license  from  any  baron  or  other  honorable  personage  of  greater 
degree  should  free  wandering  players  from  the  penalties  of 
vagabondage.3  "  So  that  now,"  writes  Prynne,  "  by  these  several 
acts  of  Parliament  ...  all  common  Stage-playes  are  solemnely 
adiudged  to  be  unlawfull  and  pernicious  Exercises,  not  sufferable 
in  our  State:  and  all  common  Stage- players,  by  whomsoever 
licensed;  to  be  but  Vacabonds,  Rogues,  and  Sturdy  Beggars."  * 
" So  that  all  Magistrates,"  he  continues,  "may  now  justly  punish 
them  as  Rogues  and  Vacabonds,  where-ever  they  goe,  (yea  they 
ought  both  in  law  and  conscience  for  to  doe  it,  since  these  severall 
Statutes  thus  inforce  them  to  it)  notwithstanding  any  License 
which  they  can  procure,  since  the  expresse  words  of  the  Statute  of 
/.  Iacobi.  cap.  7.  hath  made  all  Licenses  unavaylable  to  free  them 
from  such  punishments."  5  The  system  of  royal  patents  for 
players  which  had  grown  up  Prynne  thus  denounces,  indirectly 
if  not  explicitly,  as  unconstitutional.  The  Master  of  the  Revels 
he  has  less  scruple  in  attacking  openly.  "  Magistrates  in  sundry 
Citties  and  Counties  of  our  Realme,  have  from  time  to  time,  pun- 
ished all  wandring  Stage-players  as  Rogues,  notwithstanding 
the  Master  of  the  Revels,  or  other  mens  allowance,  who  have  no 
legall  authority  to  license  vagrant  Players' 


>>o 


1  See  above,  p.  173.     2  See  above,  pp.  27  fT.     3  See  above,  p.  28. 

*  Histrio-Maslix,  496;  the  italics  are  Prynne's.  '  Ibid.,  497. 

•  Ibid.,  492. 


*. 


222 

It  is  possible  that  the  Puritan  majority  in  Parliament,  when 
passing  the  Statute  i  James  I,  cap.  7,  had  indeed  intended,  or  at 
least  desired,  to  abolish  all  licenses  for  wandering  players,  though 
they  must  have  realized  that  the  system  of  royal  patents  which 
had  already  developed  would  probably  continue.1  But,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  government  certainly  adopted  no  such  interpre- 
tation of  the  law.  By  the  patents  that  the  King  granted  to  the 
royal  companies,  authorizing  their  performances  and  requesting 
that,  as  his  servants,  they  might  be  shown  favor  for  his  sake, 
and  by  the  elaborate  licensing  system  developed  under  the 
crown  official,  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  the  government  pro- 
vided adequately  for  the  license  of  worthy  players,  and  gave 
them  a  legal  status  amply  sufficient  to  protect  them  from  being 
classed  as  vagabonds. 

Not  all  Puritans,  indeed,  interpreted  the  statutes  as  rigor- 
ously as  did  Prynne.  The  Shorte  Treatise  against  Stage-Playes, 
printed  in  1625,  evidently  did  not  regard  plays  as  already  entirely 
forbidden  by  law,  for  it  besought  Parliament  "by  some  few 
Words  added  to  the  former  Statutes,  to  restreyne  them  for  euer 
hereafter."  2  But  throughout  the  period  Puritan  writers  taunted 
the  players  with  their  classification  as  vagabonds,  and  the  atti- 
tude of  the  whole  party  made  sufficiently  evident  what  policy 
they  would  pursue  when  the  governmental  authority  should  be 
in  their  hands.  The  actors  realized  the  fate  that  was  impend- 
ing. In  the  Stage-Players  Complaint,  printed  in  1641,  which 
laments  the  sad  state  of  the  prof  ession  caused  by  the  serious  plague 
in  London,  a  player  prophecies  worse  times  to  come.  "  Monopo- 
lers  are  downe,  Projectors  are  downe,  the  High  Commission  Court 
is  downe,  the  Starre-Chamber  is  down,  &  (some  think)  Bishops 
will  downe,  and  why  should  we  then  that  are  farre  inferior  to 
any  of  those  not  justly  feare,  least  we  should  be  downe  too?"  3 

The  misgivings  of  the  players  were  soon  proved  only  too  well 
founded.  The  Long  Parliament  now  took  the  reins  of  govern- 
ment, and  on  September  2,  1642,  issued  the  following  solemn 
Ordinance  of  the  Lords  and  Commons. 

"  Whereas  the  distressed  estate  of  Ireland,  steeped  in  her  own  blood, 
and  the  distracted  estate  of  England,  threatened  with  a  cloud  of  blood 

1  Sec  above,  pp.  35-38.         2  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  232.         3  Ibid.,  256. 


223 

by  a  civil  war,  call  for  all  possible  means  to  appease  and  avert  the 
wrath  of  God  appearing  in  these  judgments:  amongst  which  fasting 
and  prayer,  having  been  often  tried  to  be  very  effectual,  have  been 
lately  and  are  still  enjoined:  and  whereas  public  sports  do  not  well 
agree  with  public  calamities,  nor  public  stage-plays  with  the  seasons 
of  humiliation,  this  being  an  exercise  of  sad  and  pious  solemnity,  and 
the  other  being  spectacles  of  pleasure,  too  commonly  expressing  las- 
civious mirth  and  levity:  it  is  therefore  thought  fit  and  ordained  by 
the  Lords  and  Commons  in  this  Parliament  assembled,  that  while 
these  sad  causes  and  set-times  of  humiliation  do  continue,  public 
stage-plays  shall  cease  and  be  forborne.  Instead  of  which  are  recom- 
mended to  the  people  of  this  land  the  profitable  and  seasonable  con- 
siderations of  repentance,  reconciliation  and  peace  with  God,  which 
probably  will  produce  outward  peace  and  prosperity,  and  bring  again 
times  of  joy  and  gladness  to  these  nations."  l 

This  edict,  it  will  be  noticed,  does  not  express  the  extreme 
Puritan  view.  It  forbids  only  public  performances,  and  these 
but  temporarily.  Besides  religious  antipathy  to  plays,  motives 
of  political  caution  probably  caused  the  suppression,  as  in  early 
Tudor  days.  The  party  in  power  must  have  realized  the  hos- 
tility felt  towards  them  by  the  players,  the  adherents  of  the 
Court,  and  feared  lest  the  performances  should  be  used  to  foment 
rebellion  against  the  Parliamentary  rule. 

When  the  Puritans  passed  a  law  suppressing  plays,  plays 
were  really  suppressed.  Though  sporadic  attempts  to  revive 
performances  were  made  during  the  next  decade,  this  edict 
practically  closed  the  theaters,  and  certainly  marked  the  end 
of  the  Elizabethan  drama.  Most  of  the  actors  seem  to  have 
accepted  the  pronouncement  as  final.  Some  addressed  mock- 
ing petitions  to  Parliament  via  "the  great  god  Phoebus  Apollo 
and  the  nine  Heliconian  Sisters,"  begging  for  the  relaxation  of 
the  law.2  But  the  majority  of  the  prominent  players  entered 
the  King's  army,  and  there,  as  the  Historia  Histrionka  tells 
us,  "like  good  men  and  true,  served  their  old  master,  though 
in  a  different,  yet  more  honourable  capacity."  Only  one  of 
any  note,  Swanston,  sided  with  the  Parliamentary  party.3 

1  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  II,  36;  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  63. 
See  also  Gardiner,  Great  Civil  War,  I,  14-15. 

2  See  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  259  ff.;  and  Thompson,  Puritans  and  Stage,  184. 

3  Wright,  Historia  Histrionka,  409. 


224 

The  suppression  of  plays  was  to  last,  according  to  the  edict, 
only  during  the  troubled  times  of  conflict.  In  1647  the  war 
was  considered  practically  at  an  end;  but  the  opposition  to 
the  stage  continued  and  even  grew  more  extreme.  Apparently 
some  players  ventured  to  perform,  for  on  July  16,  1647,  the 
House  of  Commons  ordered  that  the  Lord  Mayor  and  the 
Justices  of  the  Peace  in  and  about  London  "be  required  to  take 
effectual  Care  speedily  to  suppress  all  publick  Plays  and  Play- 
houses, and  all  Dancings  on  the  Ropes,"  and  desired  the  con- 
currence of  the  Lords  in  this  edict.1  The  Upper  House  assented, 
but  amended  the  order  by  adding  bear-baitings  to  the  list  of 
shows  to  be  suppressed,  and  providing  that  the  edict  should 
continue  until  January  1,  1648.  Against  this  time  limit  some 
of  the  Lords  protested,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  the  desire  of 
Parliament  that  stage-plays  should  be  forbidden  forever.  But 
the  Commons  apparently  did  not  feel  that  the  mentioTTof  a  date 
for  the  expiration  of  this  particular  order  implied  that  plays  were 
to  be  allowed  thereafter,  and  on  July  17  they  accepted  without 
protest  the  bill  as  amended  by  the  Lords.2 

About  this  time  or  earlier  there  seems  to  have  been,  according 
to  Collier,  an  attempt  to  perform  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 
A  King  and  No  King,  —  a  production  promptly  stopped  by  the 
Sheriffs.3  Even  after  the  new  order  against  plays,  some  actors 
continued  to  be  rebellious.  Complaints  were  made  to  the  Com- 
mons of  the  "bold  Attempt  of  Stage-Players  playing  at  Publick 
Houses  in  the  City,  contrary  to  Ordinance  of  Parliament,"  and 
on  October  18, 1647,  amore  severe  edict  "for  the  better  suppression 
of  Stage-plays,  Interludes  and  Common  Players"  was  passed 
by  the  House.4  With  the  approval  of  the  Lords  this  was  issued 
on  October  22. 5  It  directs  and  empowers  the  Lord  Mayor,  the 
Sheriffs,  and  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  to  search  all  playing  places 
in  and  about  London,  and  arrest  all  persons  who  may  be  proved 
to  have  performed  in  plays.     Definitely  assuming  the  Puritan 

1  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  V,  246. 

2  Ibid.,  248;   Journals  0/  the  House  of  Lords,  IX,  334-335. 

3  See  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  II,  37,  40;    Fleay,  London  Stage,  365. 
*  Rushworth,  Collections,  pt.  IV,  vol.  ii,  844. 

6  Ibid.,  847,848;   Collier,  op.  cil.,  II,  iio-m;   Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  64-65. 


view,  the  ordinance  declares  that  all  such  actors  arc  to  be  brought 
before  the  Qext  General  Sessions  of  the  Peace,  "there  to  be  pun- 
ished as  Rogues,  according  to  law." 

Though  Parliament  evidently  considered  that  the  original 
edict  of  suppression  passed  in  1642  was  still  in  force,  and  had 
no  real  intention  of  relaxing  the  prohibition,  some  of  the  players 
seized  upon  the  time  limit  set  for  the  expiration  of  the  order  of 
July  17,  1647,  as  an  excuse  for  performing,  and  in  January, 
1648,  ventured  to  open  their  theaters.  The  public  seems  to 
have  responded  with  eagerness.  On  January  27  it  was  reckoned 
that  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  twenty  coaches  set  down  spec- 
tators at  one  theater  alone,  —  the  Fortune.  At  the  Red  Bull 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  Wit  Without  Money  was  performed.1 

The  Puritan  spirit  of  Parliament  was  now  aroused  to  extreme 
measures.  On  January  22,  1648,  the  Commons  were  "  informed 
that  many  Stage-Plays  were  acted  in  the  several  parts  of  the  City 
and  County  of  Middlesex,  notwithstanding  the  Ordinance  of 
Parliament  to  the  contrary.  /The  House  hereupon  ordered, 
That  an  Ordinance  should  be  drawn  for  suppressing  all  Stage- 
Plays,  and  taking  down  all  their  Boxes,  Stages  and  Seats  in 
the  several  Houses  where  the  said  Plays  were  usually  Acted, 
and  make  it  unserviceable  for  Acting  any  Plays  in  for  the  future; 
and  for  making  a  Penalty  for  such  as  shall  disobey  the  said  Ordi- 
nance :  and  this  Ordinance  to  be  brought  in  with  all  convenient 
speed.  They  further  Ordered,  That  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Sher- 
iffs, andjustices  of  the  Peace  of  the  City  of  London,  and  the 
several  Militia's  of  the  Cities  of  London  and  Westminster, 
and  likewise  of  the  Hamlets,  should  take  care  for  the  sup- 
pressing T)f  all  Stage-Plays  for  the  time  to  come."  2  Appar- 
ently no  less  eager  than  the  Commons  to  put  down  such  per- 
formances, the  Lords,  on  January  31,  sent  to  the  House  an 
Ordinance  for  Suppressing  Stage-Plays.  But  the  Commons  pre- 
ferred the  act  that  their  own  committee  had  drafted,  which  was 
accordingly  passed  by  both  Houses  and  issued  on  February  n.3 

1  Gardiner,  Great  Civil  War,  IV,  69,  quoting  contemporary  newspapers. 
1  Rushworth,  Collections,  pt.  IV,  vol.  ii,  972. 

'  Ibid.,  980,  991-992;   Scobell,  Acts  and  Ordinances,  143-144;  Hazlitt,  Eng- 
lish Drama,  66  ft.;   Collier,  op.  cit.,  II,  44  ft.,  note. 


226 

This  rigorous  ordinance  takes  the  extreme  Puritan  stand. 
"Whereas  the  Acts  of  Stage-Playes,  Interludes,  and  common 
Playes,  condemned  by  ancient  Heathens,  and  much  lesse  to  be 
tolerated  amongst  Professors  of  the  Christian  Religion,  is  the 
occasion  of  many  and  sundry  great  vices  and  disorders,  tending 
to  the  high  provocation  of  Gods  wrath  and  displeasure,  which 
lies  heavy  upon  this  Kingdome,  and  to  the  disturbance  of  the 
peace  thereof;  in  regard  whereof  the  same  hath  beene  prohibited 
by  Ordinance  of  this  present  Parliament,  and  yet  is  presumed 
to  be  practised  by  divers  in  contempt  thereof."  For  the  better 
suppression  of  such  performances  the  Lords  and  Commons 
therefore  declare  that  "all  stage-players  and  players  of  interludes 
and  common  plays"  shall  be  considered  rogues  in  the  eyes  of 
the  law,  within  the  statutes  of  Elizabeth  and  James,  and  liable 
to  the  pains  and  penalties  therein  provided.  They  shall  be 
proceeded  against  according  to  these  statutes  "whether  they 
be  wanderers  or  no,  and  notwithstanding  any  License  whatso- 
ever from  the  King  or  any  person  or  persons  to  that  purpose." 
The  status  of  vagabond  was  thus  imposed  upon  all  players, 
—  not  merely  unlicensed  traveling  ones,  as  in  the  laws  here- 
tofore. And  the  system  of  royal  patents  and  licenses  by  the 
Master  of  the  Revels  was  utterly  abolished,  leaving  the  actors 
with  no  possibility  of  legal  protection.  The  extreme  Puritan 
view  advocated  by  Prynne  thus  became  the  law  of  the  land. 

The  Ordinance  further  directs  the  Lord  Mayor,  the  Sheriffs, 
and  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  to  "pull  down  and  demolish  .  .  . 
all  Stage-Galleries,  Seats,  and  Boxes,  erected  and  used  for  the 
acting  or  playing,  or  seeing  acted  or  plaid,  such  Stage-Playes" 
in  and  about  London.  Any  player  proved  to  have  acted  in 
such  performances  shall  be  publicly  whipped  and  bound  by 
sureties  never  to  act  again,  or  in  default  of  such  security  com- 
mitted to  jail.  If  he  offend  a  second  time,  he  shall  be  punished 
as  an  incorrigible  rogue,  according  to  the  statutes.  All  money 
taken  as  admission  fees  shall  be  forfeited  to  the  churchwardens 
of  the  parish,  and  devoted  to  the  use  of  the  poor.  And  every 
person  present  as  a  spectator  shall  be  fined  five  shillings  for  each 
offense,  —  the  money  to  be  used  for  the  same  charitable  purpose. 

All  Mayors,  bailiffs,  constables,  and  other  officers,  soldiers, 


227 

and  all  persons  were  ordered  to  assist  in  the  enforcement  of  this 
rigorous  ordinance.  And  in  September,  1648,  when  Captain 
Bethan  was  made  Provost  Marshal,  he  was  directed  to  "seize 
upon  all  Ballad  Singers,  Sellers  of  Malignant  Pamphlets,  and 
to  send  them  to  the  several  Militias,  and  to  suppress  Stagc- 
playes."  x 

In  spite  of  all  these  severe  measures  some  players  still  ven- 
tured to  perform.  According  to  the  Historic,  Histrionica,  "they 
made  up  one  company  out  of  all  the  scattered  members  of  sev- 
eral; and  in  the  winter  before  the  King's  murder,  1648,  they 
ventured  to  act  some  plays,  with  as  much  caution  and  privacy 
as  could  be,  at  the  Cockpit.  They  continued  undisturbed  for 
ihree  or  four  days;  but  at  last,  as  they  were  presenting  the 
tragedy  of  the  'Bloody  Brother'  ...  a  party  of  foot-soldiers 
"beset  the  house,  surprised  'em  about  the  middle  of  the  play,  and 
carried  'em  away  in  their  habits,  not  admitting  them  to  shift,  to 
Hatton  House,  then  a  prison,  where,  having  detained  them 
some  time,  they  plundered  them  of  their  clothes,  and  let  'em 
loose  again."  2  But  even  such  mishaps  could  not  discourage 
them.  "Afterwards,  in  Oliver's  time,"  the  Historia  continues, 
"they  used  to  act  privately,  three  or  four  miles,  or  more,  out  of 
town,  now  here,  now  there :  sometimes  in  noblemen's  houses, 
in  particular,  Holland  House  at  Kensington.  ...  At  Christ- 
mas and  Bartholomew  Fair,  they  used  to  bribe  the  officer  who 
commanded  the  guard  at  Whitehall,  and  were  thereupon  con- 
nived at  to  act  for  a  few  days  at  the  Red  Bull,  but  were  some- 
times, notwithstanding,  disturbed  by  soldiers."  3 

On  one  occasion  at  least  the  actors  endeavored  by  humble 
submission  and  promises  of  good  behavior  to  soften  the  rigor 
of  the  law.  About  1650  "diverse  poor  and  distressed  men, 
heretofore  the  Actors  of  Black-Friers  and  the  Cock-Pit,"  peti- 
tioned Parliament.  They  cannot  support  themselves  and  their 
families,  they  plead,  and  they  beg  that  they  may  be  allowed  to 
play  for  a  short  time  on  trial,  to  demonstrate  their  inoffensiveness. 
They  will  produce  "only  moral  and  harmless  representations." 

1  Whitclocke,  Memorials,  332.  ■  Wright,  Historia  Histrionica,  409-410. 

3  Ibid.,  410-4 1 1.  Concerning  the  "drolls"  acted  on  these  occasions,  see  the 
note,  ibid.,  and  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  III,  280. 


228 

To  any  one  appointed  to  oversee  them  they  promise  implicit 
obedience,  and  they  assure  Parliament  that  they  are  willing 
to  contribute  "for  the  service  of  Ireland  or  as  the  State  shall 
think  fitting."  x     Their  appeal  evidently  had  no  effect. 

Unable  to  secure  any  relaxation  of  the  law,  the  players  occa- 
sionally, as  we  have  seen,  dared  to  act  in  defiance  of  it.  The 
troubles  in  which  such  venturesome  performers  involved  them- 
selves appear  at  times  in  the  records  of  these  years.  On  De- 
cember 20,  1649,  for  example,  some  actors  in  St.  John  Street 
(where  the  Red  Bull  was  situated)  "were  apprehended  by 
Troupers,  their  Cloaths  taken  away,  and  themselves  carried 
to  prison."  2  Again,  in  December,  1654,  at  the  same  playhouse, 
the  Red  Bull,  the  players  "being  gotten  into  all  their  borrowed 
gallantry  and  ready  to  act,  were  by  some  of  the  souldiery  de- 
spoiled of  all  their  bravery,  but  the  souldiery  carried  themselves 
very  civilly  towards  the  audience."  3  In  September,  1655,  the 
Red  Bull  players  were  once  more  in  trouble  and,  as  usual,  lost 
some  of  their  costumes.  The  soldiers,  less  civil  on  this  occa- 
sion, put  to  rout  the  assemblage  with  many  "broken  crowns," 
seized  some  of  the  actors  and  confiscated  their  clothes,  and  made 
the  spectators  pay  the  fine  of  five  shillings  each  or,  in  default  of 
this,  leave  their  cloaks  behind  them.4  About  January  1,  1656, 
seven  players  who  dared  to  perform  at  Newcastle  were  arrested 
and  publicly  whipped  as  rogues  and  vagabonds.5  And  among 
the  instructions  issued  to  Major-General  Desborow  in  this  same 
month,  he  was  ordered  to  suppress  all  horse-races,  cock-fighting, 
bear-baiting,  stage-plays,  or  other  unlawful  assemblies,  by 
seizing  the  persons  met  on  such  occasions.6  On  the  whole,  in 
spite  of  the  sporadic  breaches  of  the  law,  it  is  evident  that  the 
ordinance  of  suppression  was,  especially  with  the  aid  of  Crom- 

1  Petition  printed  in  Notes  and  Queries,  June  16,  1894,  by  C.  H.  Firth,  from  a 
volume  of  pamphlets  of  the  year  1650. 

2  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  419. 

3  The   Perfect   Account,    December    27-January   3,    1654-1655,    quoted    by 
C.  H.  Firth  in  Notes  and  Queries,  August  18,  1888. 

*  State  Papers,   Dont.,   1655,  336;    Weekly  Intelligencer,  September   n-18, 
1655,  quoted  by  C.  H.  Firth  in  Notes  and  Queries,  August  18,  1888. 

'Whitelocke,   Memorials,  619;    Public  Intelligencer,  January   14-21,   1656, 
quoted  by  C.  H.  Firth  in  Notes  and  Queries,  August  18,  1888. 

•  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1655-1656,  103. 


229 

well's  soldiery,  rather  rigorously  enforced,  and  that  the  English 
stage  was  during  these  years  practically  non-existent. 

In  1656  the  ingenious  D'Avenant  devised  a  form  of  entertain- 
ment which  would  not  come  under  the  ban  of  the  law.  On  May 
21  of  that  year,  by  permission  of  the  authorities,  he  presented, 
"at  the  back  part  of  Rutland  House,  in  Aldersgate  Street,"  an 
entertainment  of  declamation  and  music  "after  the  manner  of 
the  ancients."  And  later  in  the  same  year  he  produced  at  the 
same  place  his  Siege  of  Rhodes,  "made  a  Representation  by  the 
Art  of  Prospective  in  Scenes,  and  the  Story  sung  in  Recitative 
Musick."  '  Emboldened  by  his  success,  in  1658  D'Avenant 
ventured  to  produce  a  similar  entertainment,  The  Cruelty  of  the 
Spaniards  in  Peru,  at  the  old  theater  of  the  Cockpit  in  Drury 
Lane.  The  new  Protector,  Richard,  seems  to  have  had  his 
attention  drawn  to  this  enterprise.  On  December  23,  an  in- 
vestigation was  ordered  into  the  nature  of  this  "Opera,"  and  by 
what  authority  it  was  produced.  A  general  consideration  of  the 
acting  of  stage-plays  was  also  directed,  and  a  later  report  upon 
the  question.2  The  attitude  of  the  government  now  seems  to 
have  become  lenient,  and  D'Avenant's  venture  continued  suc- 
cessfully until  the  Restoration  and  beyond.  But  this  work  of 
his  belongs  to  the  new  era.  The  Elizabethan  drama  had  passed 
forever.  ■—» 

It  is  customary  in  histories  of  the  drama  and  the  stage  to 
express  some  judgment,  generally  severe,  upon  the  Puritan  sup- 
pression of  the  theaters.  But  fair  decisions  on  such  actions  in 
the  past  are  not  easy.  According  to  their  own  standards,  the 
Puritan  or  Parliamentary  party  certainly  did  right  in  rigorously 
prohibiting  the  drama.  And  it  is  not  impossible  for  modern 
English  and  American  minds,  still  so  deeply  impregnated  by  the 
spirit  of  the  Puritan  movement,  to  appreciate  their  point  of  view. 
To  men  who  had  already  developed  something  of  the  modern 
sensibility  in  matters  of  decency  and  morality,  most  of  the  later 
Elizabethan  drama  must  indeed  have  seemed  hopelessly  ab- 
horrent.    Motives  of  political  prudence,  moreover,  also  urged 

1  See  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  III,  281-282;  Whitclocke,  Memo- 
rials, 639. 

'  1S21  Variorum,  III,  93,  note. 


230 

the  dominant  party  to  act  against  the  stage.  Their  moral  zeal, 
it  is  true,  carried  them  to  an  extreme,  —  just  as  the  lack  of  that 
quality  had  carried  the  playwrights  to  the  opposite  pole,  whither 
again,  in  the  perpetual  swinging  of  the  pendulum  back  and  forth 
across  and  beyond  the  golden  mean,  the  reaction  against  Puri- 
tanism was  to  carry  the  men  of  the  Restoration.  There  was 
much  to  justify  extreme  measures  at  the  time  of  the  closing  of 
the  theaters.  (Asone  thinks  of  the  stage  of  the  period,  no  longer 
expressive  ofthe  best  feelings  of  the  nation,  as  one  remembers" 
the  preposterous  horrors  into  which  tragedy  had  degenerated, 
and  the  inexpressibly  offensive  indecency  of  much  of  the  comedy 
of  the  time,  and  with  this  picture  of  the  drama  in  mind,  reads 
the  grave  and  dignified  phrases  of  the  edict  of  1642,  one  feels 
that,  for  the  moment  at  least,  the  Puritans  had  the  better  part. 


APPENDIX 

ROYAL   PATENTS   TO   COMPANIES    OF   PLAYERS 

For  convenience  of  reference  I  have  here  tabulated  all  the  royal 
patents  to  companies,  so  far  as  I  know  them,  which  have  been  pre- 
served or  which  are  specifically  mentioned  in  documents  of  the  period. 
There  were  certainly  others  of  which  we  have  as  yet  no  definite  notice. 
Several  of  the  companies  named  below  are  known  to  have  existed  for 
some  time  before  the  date  of  their  first  extant  patent. 

1574,  May  7.     The  Earl  of  Leicester's  company. 
Privy  Seal  directing  a  Great  Seal. 
Printed  above,  pp.  33-34.     See  also  pp.  49-50,  155. 

1603,  May  19.     The  King's  company. 

Globe  theater.      Great  Seal. 

Printed  above,  pp.  36-37.  Transcripts  of  all  the  stages  through 
which  the  warrant  passed  —  the  Docket,  the  Bill  of  Privy  Signet,  the 
Writ  of  Privy  Seal,  and  the  Patent  under  the  Great  Seal  —  are  printed 
in  Halliwell-Phillipps,  Outlines,  595  ff. 

1603,  July  (?).     The  Queen's  company. 

Boar's  Head  and  Curtain  theater. 

This  exists  only  in  a  rough,  undated  draft.  In  the  Calendar  of 
State  Papers  (Dom.,  Add.,  1623-1625,  530),  where  a  brief  abstract  is 
given,  it  is  conjecturally  dated  July,  1603. 

Printed  in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  336-337. 

Mr.  Fleay  doubts  the  authenticity  of  this  document  (London  Stage, 
190-191);  but  his  reasons  are  not  convincing.  (1)  He  objects  that 
it  licenses  the  company's  playing  within  London,  whereas  no  men 
players  were  allowed  at  this  date  within  the  City.  But  it  permits 
their  performances  there  only  on  the  cessation  of  the  plague,  and  there 
is  no  proof  that  men  players  were  not  allowed  in  London  at  this  time 
under  such  circumstances.  (2)  He  objects  that  it  provides  that  deaths 
from  the  plague  shall  be  under  30  a  week,  "whereas  40  is  well  known 
to  be  the  correct  number."  But  the  letter  of  the  Privy  Council  to 
the  Lord  Mayor  on  April  9,  1604,  specifies  30,  and  40  is  not  mentioned 
until  the  King's  company  patent  of  1619.  (See  above,  pp.  212—213.) 
(3)  He  objects  that  it  mentions  the  Boar's  Head  and  the  Curtain  as  the 

231 


232 

usual  playhouses  of  the  company,  whereas  we  know  that  Worcester's 
men  —  these  same  actors  —  played  at  the  Rose  in  May,  1603,  and 
at  the  Red  Bull  and  Curtain  in  1609,  while  of  a  Boar's  Head  playing 
house  no  other  mention  is  found  since  Queen  Mary's  time.  But  a 
letter  from  the  Privy  Council  to  the  Lord  Mayor  on  March  31,  1602, 
grants  permission  to  this  same  company  to  play  "at  the  Boar's  Head 
in  Eastcheap."     (Remembrancia,  355.) 

1604,  January  31.     The  Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels. 

Warrant  to  Edward  Kirkham  and  others.  Blackfriars  theater. 
Privy  Seal  directing  a  Great  Seal. 

Printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  40-41 ;  Collier,  English  Drama- 
tic Poetry,  I,  340. 

See  above,  pp.  19,  61. 

1606,  April  30.     The  Prince's  company. 

Fortune  theater.     Privy  Seal. 

Printed  in  the  Shakspere  Society  Papers,  IV,  42-43. 

See  above,  pp.  37,  63. 

1609,  April  15.     The  Queen's  company. 

Red  Bull  and  Curtain  theaters.      Privy  Seal. 
Printed  in  the  Shakspere  Society  Papers,  IV,  45-46. 

16 10,  January  4.     The  Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels. 

Warrant  to  Philip  Rosseter  and  others.  Whitefriars  theater. 
Great  Seal. 

Mentioned  in  Patent  of  May  31,  1615.     See  below. 

16 10,  March  30.     The  Duke  of  York's  company. 

Authorization  to  perform  in  and  about  London,  "in  such  usual 
houses  as  themselves  shall  provide."     Privy  Seal. 

Printed  in  the  Shakspere  Society  Papers,  IV,  47-48. 

16 13,  January  4.     The  Elector  Palatine's  company. 

Fortune  theater.  Privy  Seal  directing  a  Great  Seal.  Issued  on 
the  Elector's  taking  over  the  company  of  the  deceased  Prince  of  Wales. 

Printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  44-46.  Order  for  Privy  Seal 
in  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  I,  366-367. 

1615,  May  31. 

Patent  to  Philip  Rosseter  and  others  granting  permission  to  erect 
a  theater  in  Blackfriars.     Privy  Seal  directing  a  Great  Seal. 

Printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  46-48;  Collier,  English  Drama- 
tic Poetry,  I,  380  ft. 

This  is  not  itself  a  company  patent,  but  it  mentions  that  of  Janu- 


233 

ary  4,  1610,  and  it  authorizes  performances  in  the  proposed  theater 
by  the  Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels,  the  Prince's  company,  and  the 
Lady  Elizabeth's  company. 
See  above,  pp.  108  S. 

1615,  July  17.     Her  Majesty's  Servants  of  her  Royal  Chamber 

at  Bristol. 

A  provincial  traveling  company.     Great  Seal.     To  John  Daniel. 

Mentioned  in  the  Letters  of  Assistance  of  April,  1618.     See  below. 

Apparently  it  was  first  intended  to  grant  this  patent  to  Samuel 
Daniel,  the  poet,  John  Daniel's  brother.  See  Sir  George  Buc's 
letter  of  July  10,  161 5,  consenting  to  its  issue,  in  State  Papers,  Dom., 
1611-1618,  294.     And  see  above,  p.  64. 

16 18,  April. 

Letters  of  Assistance  from  the  Privy  Council  to  John  Daniel,  con- 
firming the  patent  of  July  17,  1615. 

Printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  49-50;  Collier,  English  Dra- 
matic Poetry,  I,  395-396. 

16 19,  March  27.     The  King's  company. 

Globe  and  Blackfriars  theaters.     Privy  Seal  (?). 

Printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  50-52;  Collier,  English  Dra- 
matic Poetry,  I,  400-401. 

See  above,  pp.  201-202. 

This  patent  is  often  misdated  1620.  Hazlitt  labels  it  "  March  27, 
1619-1620";  but  as  the  year  began,  according  to  the  old  style,  on 
March  25,  this  is  meaningless.  The  document  is  indorsed  "vicesimo 
septimo  die  Martii  Anno.  R.  Regis  Jacobi  decimo  septimo,"  — i.e. 
March  27,  17  James  I.  Elizabeth  died  on  March  24,  1603.  March 
27,  1  James  I,  was  therefore  in  1603,  and  March  27,  17  James  I,  in 

1619.  In    the    State   Papers,  Dom.,  1619-1623,    28,   the    patent    is 
properly  dated  March  27,  1619,  new  style. 

1620,  February  24.     Patent  to  Robert  Lea  and  others. 
Mentioned  by  Sir  Henry  Herbert  after  the  Restoration.     Halliwell- 

Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  93. 
See  above,  p.  64. 

1622,  July  8.     The  Children  of  the  Revels. 

Warrant  to  Robert  Lee,  Richard  Perkins,  and  others,  "late  come- 
dians of  Queen  Anne  deceased."  No  theater  named.  Order  for  a 
Privy  Seal. 

Printed  in  1821  Variorum,  III,  62,  note. 


234 

1625,  June  24.     The  King's  company. 

Globe  and  Blackfriars  theaters.     Privy  Seal. 

Printed  in  Hazlitt,  English  Drama,  57-59;  Collier,  English  Dra- 
matic Poetry,  I,  435-43^- 

Issued  by  Charles  I  on  his  taking  over  his  father's  company,  and 
in  the  same  form  as  the  patent  of  March  27,  1619,  to  the  same  players. 

See  above,  p.  38. 

1628,  December  9.     The  Lady  Elizabeth's  company. 

Privy  Seal. 

Abstract  in  State  Papers,  Dom.,  1628-1629,  406. 

1630-163 1.     Patent  to  Andrew  Cave  and  others. 

Mentioned  by  Sir  Henry  Herbert  after  the  Restoration.     Halliwell- 
Phillipps,  Dramatic  Records,  93. 
See  above,  p.  64. 


LIST   OF   BOOKS   CITED 

The  following  list  does  not  represent  all  the  sources  consulted  in  the 
preparation  of  this  essay.  Its  purpose  is  merely  to  indicate  the  full  title 
and  the  edition  used  in  the  case  of  each  of  the  books  cited  in  the  foot-notes, 
in  order  to  facilitate  reference.  Articles  in  journals,  magazines,  and  such 
series  of  publications  as  those  of  the  Shakspere  Societies  and  the  Modern 
Language  Association  are  not  included  here,  for  in  all  such  citations  suffi- 
cient particulars  are  given  in  the  foot-notes. 

Acts  of  the  Privy  Council  of  England.     New  series,  1542-1604.     Ed.  J.  R. 

Dasent.     32  vols.     London,  1890-1907. 
Agas,  Radulph.     Civitas  Londinum :  A  Survey  of  the  Cities  of  London  and 

Westminster,  the  Borough  of  Southwark  and  Parts  Adjacent,  in  tlte 

Reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.     Ed.  W.  H.  Overall.     London,  1874. 
Alleyn  Papers:   A  Collection  of  Original  Documents  Illustrative  of  the  Life 

and  Times  of  Edward  Alleyn  and  of  the  Early  English  Stage  and  Drama. 

Ed.    J.    P.    Collier.      Shakspere    Society   Publications,  vol.   XVIII. 

London,    1843. 
Arber,  Edward.     An  Introductory  Sketch  to  the  Martin  Mar  prelate  Contro- 
versy.    English  Scholar's  Library,  no.  8. 
Arber,  Edward.     Transcript  of  the  Registers  of  the  Stationers'  Company, 

1554-1640.     5  vols.     London,  1875-1894. 
Ascham,  Roger.     The  Scholemaster .     Ed.  Edward  Arber.     Westminster, 

1903. 
Baker,  G.  P.     The  Development  of  Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatist.     New  York, 

1907. 
Beaumont  and    Fletcher.     Works.  Ed.    Henry  Weber.     14    vols.    Edin- 
burgh, 181 2. 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher.     Works.     Variorum  Edition.     12  vols.     London, 

1904-. 
Benham,   William,    and   Welch,    Charles.     Mediaeval   London.     London, 

1 901. 
Besant,  Sir  Walter.     London  in  the  Time  of  the  Stuarts.     London,  1903. 
Birch,  W.  de  G.     Historical  Charters  and  Constitutional  Documents  of  the 

City  of  London.     London,  1887. 
Brandl,  Alois.     Quellen  des  wcltlichen  Dramas  in  England.     Quellen  und 

Forschungen  zur  Sprach-  und  Culturgeschichte,  no.  80.     Strassburg, 

1898. 

Brome,  Richard.     Dramatic  Works.     3  vols.     London,  1873. 

Bullen,  A.  H.     Collection  of  Old  English  Plays.     4  vols.     London,  1882- 

1885. 

235 


236 

Campbell,  Douglas.  The  Puritan  in  Holland,  England  and  America. 
2  vols.     New  York,  1892. 

Castelain,  Maurice.     Ben  Jonson:   L' Homme  et  VCEuvre.     Paris,  1907. 

Chalmers,  George.  An  Apology  for  the  Believers  in  the  Shakspeare-Papers 
which  were  Exhibited  in  Norfolk-Street.     London,  1797. 

Chalmers,  George.  A  Supplemental  Apology  for  the  Believers  in  the  Shak- 
speare-Papers.    London,  1799. 

Chambers,  E.  K.     The  Mediaeval  Stage.     2  vols.     Oxford,  1903. 

Chambers,  E.  K.  Notes  on  the  History  of  the  Revels  Office  under  the  Tudors. 
London,  1906. 

Chapman,  George.  Works:  Plays.  Chatto  and  Windus  Edition.  London, 
1874. 

Chapman,  George.  Works:  Poems  and  Minor  Translations.  Chatto  and 
Windus  Edition.     London,  1875. 

Cibber,  Colley.  Apology  for  the  Life  of  Mr.  Colley  Cibber,  Written  by  Him- 
self.    Ed.  R.  W.  Lowe.     2  vols.     London,  1889. 

Collier,  J.  P.  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  to  the  Time  of  Shake- 
speare, and  Annals  of  the  Stage  to  the  Restoration.     3  vols.     London, 

1879. 

Collier,  J.  P.  Memoirs  of  Edward  Alleyn,  Founder  of  Dulwich  College. 
Shakspere  Society  Publications,  vol.  I.     London,  1841. 

Cunningham,  Peter.  Extracts  from  the  Accounts  of  the  Revels  at  Court,  in 
the  Reigns  of  Queen  Elizabeth  and  King  James  I.  Shakspere  Society 
Publications,  vol.  VII.     London,  1842. 

Dodsley,  Robert.  Old  Plays.  Ed.  W.  C.  Hazlitt.  15  vols.  London,  1874- 
1876. 

1821  Variorum.     See  Shakspere. 

Fairholt,  F.  W.  History  of  Lord  Mayors'  Pageants.  Percy  Society  Pub- 
lications, vol.  X.     London,  1843. 

Fleay,  F.  G.  A  Biographical  Chronicle  of  the  English  Drama,  1559-1642. 
2  vols.     London,  1891. 

Fleay,  F.  G.  A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage,  1550-1642.  Lon- 
don, 1890. 

Fleay,  F.  G.  A  Chronicle  History  of  the  Life  and  Work  of  William  Shake- 
speare, Player,  Poet  and  Playmaker.     New  York,  1886. 

Foxe,  John.  Ecclesiastical  History,  conteyning  the  Actes  and  Monumentes 
of  Martyrs.     2  vols.     London,  1576. 

Gardiner,  S.  R.  History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of  James  I  to  the 
Outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  1603-1642.     10  vols.     London,  1893-1895. 

Gardiner,  S.  R.     History  of  the  Great  Civil  War.     4  vols.     London,  1893- 

1897- 
Gosson,  Stephen.     The  Schoole  of  Abuse,  containing  a  Pleasant  Invective 

against  Poets,  Pipers,  Players,  Jesters  and  such  like  Caterpillars  of  a 

Commonwealth.     Shakspere  Society  Publications,  vol.   II.     London, 

184 1. 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  J.  O.     A  Collection  of  Ancient  Documents  respecting 


237 

the  Office  of  Master  of  the  Revels,  and  Other  Papers  relating  to  the  Early 
English  Theatre,  from  the  Original  Manuscripts  formerly  in  the  Hasle- 
wood  Collection.     London,  1870.     Running  title,  Dramatic  Records. 

Halliwell-Phillipps,  J.  O.  Illustrations  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare.  London, 
1874. 

Ilalliwcll-Phillipps,  J.  O.  Letters  of  the  Kings  of  England.  2  vols.  London, 
[846-1848. 

Halliwell-Phillipps,  J.  O.  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare.  London, 
1882. 

Halliwell-Phillipps,  J.  O.  Visits  of  Shakespeare's  Company  of  Actors  to  the 
Provincial  Cities  and  Towns  of  England.     Brighton,  1887. 

Harrison,  William.  Description  of  England  in  Shakspere' s  Youth.  Ed. 
F.  J.  Furnivall.  New  Shakspere  Society  Publications,  series  6,  no.  1, 
5,  and  8.     London,  1877-1881. 

Hazlitt,  W.  C.  The  English  Drama  and  Stage,  under  the  Tudor  and  Stuart 
Princes,  1543-1664.  Illustrated  by  a  Series  of  Documents,  Treatises 
and  Poems.     Printed  for  the  Roxburghe  Library,  1869. 

Hazlitt,  W.  C.  The  Livery  Companies  of  the  City  of  London.  London, 
1892. 

Henslowe,  Philip.  Diary.  Ed.  W.  W.  Greg.  Part  I,  Text.  London, 
1004. 

Henslowe  Papers,  being  Documents  Supplementary  to  his  Diary.  Ed.  W. 
W.  Greg.     London,  1907. 

Herbert  of  Cherbury,  Edward,  Lord.  Autobiography.  Ed.  S.  L.  Lee. 
London,  1886. 

Heywood,  Thomas.  An  Apology  for  Actors.  Shakspere  Society  Publica- 
tions, vol.  III.     London,  1841. 

Historical  MSS.  Commission  Reports.     London,  1871-. 

Holinshed,  Raphael.  First,  Second  and  Third  Volumes  of  Chronicles.  3 
vols,  in  2.     London,  1586-1587. 

Ingram,  J.  H.     Christopher  Marlowe  and  his  Associates.     London,  1904. 

Jonson,  Ben.  Works.  Ed.  W.  Gifford  and  F.  Cunningham.  9  vols. 
London,  1875. 

Jonson,  Chapman,  and  Marston,  Eastward  Hoe,  and  Jonson,  Alchemist. 
Ed.  F.  E.  Schelling.     Belles  Lettres  Series.     Boston,  n.d. 

Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  i$47~- 

Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  1509-. 

Kelly,  William.  Notices  Illustrative  of  the  Drama  and  Other  Popular 
Amusements,  chiefly  in  the  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Centuries,  Ex- 
tracted from  MSS.  of  the  Borough  of  Leicester.     London,  1865. 

Koeppel,  Emil.  Quellcnstudien  zuden  DramenChapm  .n's,  Massingcr's  und 
Ford's.  Quellen  und  Forschungen  zur  Sprach-  und  Culturgeschichte, 
no.  82.      Strassburg,  1897. 

Kyd,  Thomas.     Works.     Ed.  F.  S.  Boas.     Oxford,  1901. 

Lang,  Andrew.  Social  England  Illustrated;  a  Collection  of  Seventeenth 
Century  Tracts.     In  the  English  Garner.     Westminster,  1903. 


238 

Letters  and  Papers,  Foreign  and  Domestic,  of  the  Reign  of  Henry  VIII,  Cal- 
endar of.  Ed.  J.  S.  Brewer,  J.  Gairdner,  and  R.  H.  Brodie.  London, 
1862-. 

Lodge,  Edmund.  Illustrations  of  British  History.  3  vols.  London, 
1 791. 

Loftie,  W.  J.     History  of  London.     2  vols.     London,  1884. 

Lyly,  John.     Complete  Works.     Ed.  R.  W.  Bond.     3  vols.     Oxford,  1902. 

Lyly,  John.     Endymion.     Ed.  G.  P.  Baker.     New  York,  1894. 

Lysons,  Daniel.     Environs  of  London.     7  vols.     London,  1800-1811. 

Maas,  Hermann.  Aussere  Geschichte  der  englischen  Theatertruppen  in 
dem  Zeitraum  von  1559  bis  1642.  Materialen  zur  Kunde  des  alteren 
english.  Dramas,  XIX.     Louvain,  n.d. 

Mackay,  Charles.  A  Collection  of  Songs  and  Ballads  relative  to  the  London 
Prentices.     Percy  Society  Publications,  vol.  I.     London,  1841. 

Massinger,  Philip.  Believe  As  You  List.  Ed.  T.  C.  Croker.  Percy  Society 
Publications,  vol.  XXVII.     London,  1849. 

Merewether,  H.  A.,  and  Stephens,  A.  J.  The  History  of  the  Boroughs  and 
Municipal  Corporations  of  the  United  Kingdom.     3  vols.     London, 

1835. 
Middleton,  Thomas.     Works.     Ed.  A.  H.  Bullen.     8  vols.     London,  1885- 

1886. 
Nash,  Thomas.     Complete  Works.     Ed.  A.  B.  Grosart.     6  vols.     London, 

1 883-1 885. 
Nicholls,  Sir  George.     A  History  of  the  English  Poor  Law.     2  vols.     New 

York,  1898. 
Nichols,  John.     Progresses  and  Public  Processions  of  Queen  Elizabeth.     3 

vols.     London,  1823. 
Northbrooke,  John.     A  Treatise  against  Dicing,  Dancing,  Plays  and  Inter- 
ludes.    Ed.  J.  P.  Collier.     Shakspere  Society  Publications,  vol.  XIV. 

London,  1843. 
Old  English  Drama.     2  vols.     London,  1825. 
Ordish,  T.  F.     Early  London  Theatres.     London,  1894. 
Price,  W.  H.    The  English  Patents  of  Monopoly.    Harvard  Economic  Stud- 
ies, vol.  I.     Boston  and  New  York,  1906. 
Prynne,  William.     Histrio-Mastix:    The  Players  Scourge  or  Actors  Trag- 

cedie.     London,   1633. 
Raumer,  F.  L.  G.  von.     History  of  the  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Centuries 

Illustrated  by  Original  Documents.     Translated  from  the   German. 

2  vols.     London,  1835. 
Remembrancia.     Analytical  Index  to  the  Series  of  Records  Known  as  the 

Remembrancia,  Preserved  among  the  Archives  of  the  City  of  London. 

a.d.   15 79-1664.     Ed.  W.  H.  Overall  and  H.  C.  Overall.     London, 

1878.  ' 
Rendle,  William.     Old  Southwark  and  its  People.     Southwark,  1878. 
Rushworth,   J.     Historical  Collections,   containing  the   Principal  Matters 

from  the  Sixteenth  Year  of  King  James  to  the  Death  of  King  Charles  I. 

4  parts  in  7  vols.     1659-1701. 


239 

Rymer,  Thomas,  anil  Sanderson,  Robert.  Fcedera,  Convention; s,  Literce, 
ct   Cujuscunque  Generis   Acta  Publica.      20  vols.    London,    1726- 

1735- 

Schelling,  F.  E.     Elizabethan  Drama,   2  vols.      Boston  and  New  York, 

1908. 

Scobell,  Henry.  A  Collection  of  Acts  and  Ordinances  of  General  Use,  Made 
in  the  Parliament  Begun  and  Held  at  Westminster  the  Third  Day  of 
November,  Anno  1640.     London,  1658. 

Shakspere,  William.  1821  Variorum.  The  Plays  and  Poems  of  William 
Shakespeare,  with  the  Corrections  and  Illustrations  of  Various  Com- 
mentators :  Comprehending  a  Life  of  the  Poet  and  an  Enlarged  History 
of  the  Stage  by  the  Late  E.  M alone.  Ed.  J.  Boswell.  21  vols.  London, 
1821. 

Sharpe,  R.  R.     London  and  the  Kingdom.     3  vols.     London,  1894-1805. 

Sir  Thomas  More.  Ed.  A.  Dyce.  Shakspere  Society  Publications,  vol. 
XXIII.     London,  1844. 

Small,  R.  A.  The  Stage  Quarrel  between  Ben  J  on  son  and  the  So-called  Poe- 
tasters. Forschungen  zur  englischen  Sprache  und  Litteratur,  vol.  I. 
Breslau,  1899. 

State  Papers. 

Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  of  Edward  VI,  Mary,  Eliza- 
beth and  James  I,  1547-1625.  Ed.  R.  Lemon  and  M.  A.  E.  Green. 
12  vols.  London,  1856-1872. 
Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  of  the  Reign  of  Charles  I,  1625- 
1649.  Ed.  J.  Bruce  and  W.  D.  Hamilton.  23  vols.  London,  1858- 
1897. 
Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  during  the  Commonwealth, 
1649-1660.     Ed.  M.  A.  E.  Green.     13  vols.     London,  1875-1886. 

State  Trials.  A  Complete  Collection  of  State  Trials  and  Proceedings  for 
High  Treason  and  Other  Crimes  and  Misdemeanors.  Ed.  T.  B.  Howell 
and  T.  J.  Howell.     ^  vols.     London,  1816-1826. 

Statutes  of  the  Realm.  Record  Commission.  9  vols,  in  10.  London,  1810- 
1828. 

Stephen,  J.  F.  History  of  the  Criminal  Law  of  England.  3  vols.  Lon- 
don, 1883. 

Stephenson,  H.  T.     Shakespeare's  London.     New  York,  1905. 

Stow,  John.  A  Survey  of  London.  Ed.  W.  J.  Thorns.  London, 
1842. 

Strype,  John.  The  History  of  the  Life  and  Acts  of  Edmund  Grindal.  Ox- 
ford, 1 82 1. 

Stubbs,  William.  Constitutional  History  of  England.  3  vols.  Oxford, 
1887-1891. 

Thompson,  E.  N.  S.  The  Controversy  between  the  Puritans  and  the  Stage. 
Yale  Studies  in  English,  vol.  XX.     New  York,  1903. 

Thorndike,  A.  H.  The  Influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  Shakspere. 
Worcester,  1901. 

Variorum  of  1821.     See  Shakspere. 


240 

« 

Ward,  A.  W.     A  History  of  English  Dramatic  Literature  to  the  Death  of 

Queen  Anne.     3  vols.     London,  1899. 
Warner,  Rebecca.     Epistolary  Curiosities,  consisting  of  Unpublished  Letters 

of  the  Seventeenth  Century,  Illustrative  of  the  Herbert  Family.     Bath, 

1818. 
Warton,  Thomas.     History  of  English  Poetry.     4  vols.     London,  1824. 
Wheatley,  H.  B.,  and  Cunningham,  P.    London  Past  and  Present.     3  vols. 

London,  1891. 
Whitelocke,  Bulstrode.     Memorials  of  the  English  Affairs  from  Charles  I 

to  Charles  II.     London,  1682. 
Winwood's  Memorials.     Memorials  of  Affairs  of  State  in  the  Reigns  of  Queen 

Elizabeth  and  King  James  I,  Collected  (chiefly)  from  the  Original  Papers 

of  the  Right  Honourable  Sir  Ralph  Winwood,  Kt.  Sometime  One  of  the 

Principal  Secretaries  of  State.     London,  1 725. 
Wotton,  Sir  Henry.     Reliquia  Wottoniance;  or  A  Collection  of  Lives,  Letters, 

Poems.     London,  1672. 
Wright,  James.    Historia  Histrionica.    In  Hazlitt's  edition  of  Dodsley's 

Old  Plays,  vol.  XV,  pp.  399-431. 


INDEX 


Act  abolishint  Diversity  in  Opinions,  1530.  7 
Act  for  preventing  profane  use  of  holy  names 

in  plays,  10,  00 
Act   of    1543   for   the   advancement   of   true 

religion.  7,  24 
Act  of  Uniformity,  1540,  forbade  interludes 
against    Book    of    Common    Prayer,    9; 
reenacted  in  1550,  13-14 
Acte  for  the  Punishement  of  Vacabondes,  and 

for  Relief  of  the  Poore  and  Impotent,  27 
Actors  not  under  good  discipline,  8;  status  of, 
under  Roman  and  English  law,  21-22,  31, 
320;     first   classed   with   vagabonds,    25; 
held  in  high  favor,  36;    erring,  punished 
leniently,    134;     must    have    practice   for 
royal   performances,    150;     realized   their 
impending  fate,  222;  majority  of,  entered 
the  King's  army,  223.     See  also  Players 
Admiral's  company,  The,  taken  into  Prince 
Henry's  service,  37;    two  plays  licensed 
for,  57-58;    authorized  to  play,  58,  189; 
expected  to  obey  the  Master,  60;   at  The 
Rose,   08;    submitted   to  order  of   Lord 
Mayor,  176;   building  a  new  theater,  100; 
to  occupy  The  Fortune,  191 
Alderman  for  Southwark  never  elected,  141 
Aldermen  of  London,  see  London 
Allen,  Edward,  in  Earl  of  Worcester's  com- 
pany, 32 
Alleyn,  Edward,  aided  by  Earl  of  Notting- 
ham, 100;  and  the  Privy  Council,  100,  191 
Alleyn  and  Henslowe's  new  theater,  190,  191 
Alsatia,  name  given  to  Whitefriars,  147 
Amboyna,  Tortures  of  English  at,  not  allowed 

in  a  play,  122 
Amends  for  Ladies,  by  Field,  played  at  Ros- 

seter's  theater,  201 
Ancre,    Marquess   d\   Play   concerning   the, 
prevented,    68,     113;     responsibility    for 
death  of,  assumed  by  Louis  XIII,  113 
Andrewes,  Rye',  in  Earl  of  Worcester's  com- 
pany, 32 
Apology  for  Actors  by  Thomas  Heywood,  132 
Apprentices,    Insurrection    by,    against    the 
French   and   Dutch,   94;     some   London, 
arrested    for    performing    Taylor's    The 
Hog  hath  Lost  his  Pearl,  112;  demoralized 
by  the  theaters,  178,  187;    armed  house- 
holders on  watch  against,   180;    attempt 
to  pull  down  the  Cockpit  Theater,  217; 
attack  of,  on  The  Red  Bull,  218 
Armyn,  Robert,  in  the  King's  Men,  36 
Arthur,   Prince  of  Wales,   had  company  of 
players,  23 


Arundel's,  Lord,  company  of  players,  23; 
summoned  before  the  Recorder,  Fleet- 
wood, 169 

Ascham,  Roger,  on  the  Lord  Mayor,  150-51 

Ashley,  see  Astley 

Astley,  Sir  John,  granted  reversion  of  Master- 
ship, 64;  succeeds  Buc,  65;  special  com- 
mission given  to,  65;    death  of,  66 

Audience,  Shakspere's,  1,  3;  superior  social 
status  of,  at  Burbage's  theater,  202,  204 

Aunay,  Josias  d',  Warrant  to,  for  playhouse, 
305 

Bale,  John,  Famous  play  of,  6;    chief  Prot- 
estant writer  of  controversial  plays,  8 
Ball,  The,  by  Shirley  and  Chapman,  censored, 

"4 

Ballad  singers  to  be  arrested,  227 

Banbury,  Mayor  of,  arrested  a  company  with 
two  licenses,  41-42 

Bankside,  Two  Liberties  bordering  on  the, 
142-43;  under  Justices  of  Surrey,  145; 
playhouse  allowed  at,  186 

Bankside  playhouse,  Privy  Council  on  a 
seditious  play  at  a,  97 

Bankside  theaters,  Players  at,  to  contribute 
for  poor  of  St.  Saviour's  parish,  60,  189; 
vagabonds  frequent  the,  183;  ordered 
demolished,  188;    again  flourishing,  189 

Barmondsey  Street,  Precinct  of,  under  Jus- 
tices of  Surrey,  145 

Baraevelt,  John  of,  Story  of,  dramatized,  114 

Barnnelt,  Production  of,  forbidden  by  the 
Bishop  of  London,  19,  114;  Buc's  cor- 
rections to,  114-18;   analysis  of,  115-16 

Bear  Garden,  The,  or  Hope  Theater,  in  the 
Liberty  of  the  Clink,  143 

Bearbaiting,  forbidden  on  the  Sabbath,  20; 
power  to  license,  46;    suppressed,  224 

Beaumont,  M.  de,  on  the  popular  feeling 
towards  James  I,  100;  tried  to  prevent 
performance  of  Chapman's  Biron's  Con- 
spiracy and  Tragedy,  105-6,  107-8 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  A  King  and  No 
King  stopped  by  the  sheriffs,  224;  Wit 
Without  Money  performed,  225 

Beeston,  Wiltiam,  committed  to  the  Mar- 
shalsea,  131;  removed  from  charge  of 
his  Company,  132 

Beeston's,  William,  company  of  the  King's 
and  Queen's  young  players.  Exclusive 
right  of,  to  certain  plays,  83 ;  shows  dis- 
respect to  King  and  defiance  of  the 
Master,  68,  131-32 


241 


242 


Beggars.  Definition  of  Sturdy,  14  Elizabeth, 
cap.  5,  20-30 

Believe  as  You  List,  by  Massinger,  refused  a 
license  by  Herbert,  81;  licensed  on  re- 
vision, 123;    Gardiner  on,  123-24 

Benger,  Sir  Thomas,  a  very  inefficient  Master, 
48,  50;  death  of,  50 

Berkeley,  Henry,  Letter  of,  on  playing  on 
Sunday,  209 

Bethan,  Captain,  appointed  Provost  Marshal, 
227 

Bible,  Tyndale's  translation  of,  condemned,  7 

Bills  of  mortality,  Increase  of  area  covered  by, 
212 

Biron's  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy,  Trouble 
from,  for  Chapman,  105-7;  Buc's  refusal 
to  license,  for  the  press,  106;  licensed 
after  much  mutilation,  107 

Blackfriars  district  exempt  from  Lord  May- 
or's jurisdiction,  144;  payments  for  re- 
pairs in,  referred  to  a  commission,  145; 
Lord  Cobham  named  to  preserve  order 
in,  146;  granted  to  the  City,  146,  197,  200; 
rights  of  sanctuary  in,  147;  inhabited 
largely  by  Puritans,  147;  plays  in,  185; 
City  protested  against  Rosseter's  Theater 
in,  198-99 

Blackfriars  Theater,  38,  76;  appeal  of  in- 
habitants against,  to  Privy  Council,  144, 
184-85,  201-2;  question  of,  puzzling, 
185-87;  excluded  from  orders  for  demoli- 
tion, 1 88;  Children  of  the  Chapel  at,  187, 
195;  commission  on  removal  of,  203; 
playing  at,  stopped,  214;  authorized 
theater  of  the  Children  of  the  Queen's 
Revels,  232;  of  the  King's  Company,  198, 
201,  233,  234 

Blagrave,  Thomas,  Clerk  of  the  Revels, 
served  as  Acting  Master,  48,  50 

Boar's  Head  in  Eastcheap,  Performances 
allowed  at  the,  194;  authorized  theater 
of  Queen's  Company,   231,  232 

Boar's  Head  without  Aldgate,  Players  at, 
arrested,  12 

Bondman,  The,  by  Massinger,  Duke  of  Buck- 
ingham satirized  in,  123 

Bonner,  Bishop,  of  London,  prohibited  plays 
in  churches,  42 

Book,  the  usual  word  for  a  play,  80  n 

Book  of  Common  Prayer,  Interludes  deriding 
the,  forbidden,  9,  13-14 

Book  of  Sports  issued  by  James  I,  20;  ratified 

by  Charles  I,  20 
Bourchier,  Henry,  see  Essex,  Earl  of 
Box  at  each  theater  furnished  gratis  to  Her- 
bert, 76 
Boyle,  R.,  on  Barnevell,  115 
Boys  with  good  voices  taken  from  schools  for 
the  Chapel  Royal,  32,  48,  51;    forbidden 
to  act  in  plays,  38 
Braynes,  John,  Indictment  of,  160 
"Bridge  Without,"  Ward  of,  141 
Bristol,  Messenger  from  Master's  Office  sent 
to,   73;    Her  Majesty's  Servants  of  her 
Royal  Chambers  at,  233 


Brome's,  Alexander,  English  Moor,  played 
by  the  Queen's  Company,  129 

Brooke,  William,  see  Cobham,  Lord 

Browne,  Edward,  in  Earl  of  Worcester's 
company,  32 

Browne,  Robert,  in  Earl  of  Worcester's  com- 
pany, 32 

Buc,  Sir  George,  appointed  Master  of  the 
Revels  to  succeed  Tilney,  62;  as  an 
author,  63;  extended  the  Master's  juris- 
diction, 63-64;  licensed  a  playhouse  in 
Whitefriars,  64,  73-74;  censored  and 
licensed  plays,  65 ;  death  of,  66;  censored 
the  Second  Maiden's  Tragedy,  78;  the 
first  to  license  plays  for  printing,  64,  79, 
84;  letter  from  Chapman  to,  on  his 
refusal  to  license  Biron  for  the  press,  106; 
grants  the  license,  107;  expurgations  from 
the  Second  Maiden's  Tragedy,  100-12,  118, 
134;  his  censorship  of  Sir  John  Van 
Olden  Barnevell,  1 14-18;  not  unreasonably 
severe,  117.  See  also  Herbert;  Master 
of  the  Revels;   Tilney 

Buc's  Office  Book,  46,  74,  75;   burned,  66  n 

Buckingham  headed  movement  against  Spain, 
119, 122;  portrayed  in  Game  at  Chess,  119; 
portrayed  by  Massinger,  123-24 

Buggin,  suggests  that  workmen  be  compelled 
to  serve  the  Revels  Office,  48 

Building  and  fire  laws,  Germ  of,  207 

Bull,  The,  in  Bishopsgate  St.,  165 

Bullbaiting  forbidden  on  the  Sabbath,  20; 
power  to  license,  46 

Bullen,  A.  H.,  on  Barne-velt,  116 

Burbage,  James,  in  Earl  of  Leicester's  com- 
pany, 33;  and  others  driven  to  the 
Liberties,  158;    indictment  of,  160 

Burbage,  Richard,  in  the  King's  Men,  36 

Burbage's  private  theater,  see  Blackfriars 
Theater 

Burgess  class,  The  wealthier,  decidedly 
Puritan,  216 

Burghley,  Lord,  Three  reports  to,  on  re- 
organization of  Revels  Office,  48-40; 
letter  of  Lord  Mayor  to,  55,  176;  letter 
from  Fleetwood  to,  94;  Paris  Garden 
disaster  reported  to,  165-66 

Calvert,  Samuel,  Letter  of,  to  Winwood,  on 

the  boldness  of  actors,  10 1 
Cambridge,  Scholars  of,  that  go  a-begging, 

30 
Canterbury,  Archbishop  of,  13;    requested  to 
appoint  a  member  of  commission  on  cen- 
soring, 18,  55;   requested  by  Aldermen  of 
London  to  influence  Tilney  to  stop  plays, 
55-56,  179;    arranged  for  players  to  con- 
tribute to  parish  poor,  60,  207;  and  Bishop 
of  London  sole  censors  and  licensers  of 
all  printed  books,  84;    and  Herbert,  126; 
stopped  playing  at  Blackfriars  in  Lent,  214 
Canterbury,  Mayor  of,  arrested  actors,  12 
Cardinals,  Comedy  acted  in  defamation  of,  6 
Castelain,  M.,  attributes  troubles  of  Jonson 
and  Chapman  to  Sir  Giles  Goosecap,  104 


243 


Catholic  interludes,  suppressed,  8-0;  pag- 
eants presented  at  marriage  of  Mary  and 
Philip,  10;  action  to  prevent  danger  of 
sedition  from,  13 

Cave,  Andrew,  and  others,  Patent  to,  234 

Cawarden,  Sir  Thomas,  Patent  of  appoint- 
ment of,  as  Master  of  the  Revels,  47; 
superintended  Elizabeth's  coronation  fes- 
tivities, 47 

Censor,  The,  and  his  work,  2,  61 ;  the  Master 
the  sole,  for  London  and  about,  76;  ex- 
amples of  the  work  of,  93,  100-12;  recom- 
mended by  the  Privy  Council,  164; 
adopted  by  Lord  Mayor,  165 

Censoring  for  sedition  and  heresy  not  for 
decency  and  morality,  13;  instructions  to 
officials  in,  13-14;  no  revolution  in,  by 
appointment  of  the  Master,  17;  com- 
mission on,  18,  91 ;  power  of,  conferred 
on  the  Master,  34,  50;  exclusive  right  of, 
not  rigorously  enforced  outside  of  London, 
82;    arguments  for,  86 

Censorship,  Study  of  the  nature  of  the,  3; 
in  London  under  Elizabeth,  4,  13-18,  90- 
100;  general  history  of,  1485-1642,  4-19; 
important  step  in  history  of  governmental, 
7,24;  in  hands  of  officials,  8;  first  attempt 
to  establish  a  definite  system  of,  9;  ex- 
ercised by  Justices  of  the  Peace,  11-12; 
of  public  and  private  performances,  13; 
by  local  authorities,  15;  working  of  the 
system,  15;  in  London,  16;  conception 
of  the  power  of,  in  1589,  18;  germ  of  the, 
in  the  Revels  Office,  49;  a  most  important 
function  of  the  Master,  76;  chapter  on 
the  nature  of  the,  80-136;  idea  of,  differ- 
ent from  that  of  to-day,  89;  specimen  of 
Tilney's,  93;  specimens  of  Buc's,  109-12; 
notable  case  of,  under  Herbert,  118-22; 
effect  of,  on  the  drama,  134;  what  would 
the  Elizabethan  drama  have  been  with- 
out the,  134-35;  centralization  of  power 
through  the,  148-49 

Censorship  commission,  A,  appointed,  18,  55, 

91 

Censorship  of  the  press  in  London,  84 

Chamberlain,  John,  on  tragedy  of  Goury,  101; 
on  Game  at  Chess,  122 

Chambers,  E.  K.,  on  common  players,  25; 
on  vagabonds,  31;  on  the  Master's 
authority  and  on  the  Master  of  the  Rolls, 
54;  on  the  order  prohibiting  plays  in  the 
City,  158,  163;  on  petition  of  Queen's 
Majesty's  Players,  171 

Chapel  Boys,  see  Children  of  the  Chapel 

Chapel  Royal  and  St.  Paul's,  Choir  boys 
selected  for,  32 

Chapman,  George,  on  Eastward  Hoe  given 
without  ''allowance,"  61;  newly  dis- 
covered letters  of,  104;  disrespect  to 
foreign  royalty  of,  105;  letter  to  the  censor 
for  refusal  of  press  license,  106;  Biron 
finally  licensed,  107;  indiscreet  in  repre- 
senting English  royalty,  107 

Chapman's  Biron,  101,  105-7 


Charles  I,  on  abuses  committed  on  Sunday, 
20;  conditions  under,  differed  from  those 
under  Elizabeth,  35;  patron  of  a  com- 
pany, 38;  patents  of  monopoly  sold  under, 
39;  project  of  marriage  of,  with  the 
Infanta  Maria,  118;  visit  of,  to  the 
Spanish  court,  119;  attitude  of,  towards 
Frederick,  Elector  Palatine,  portrayed  by 
Massinger,  122-23;  suggested  plot  of  the 
Gamester  to  Shirley,  127  n;  helped  Her- 
bert revise  D'Avenant's  Wits,  127;  ex- 
purgated Massinger's  King  and  Subject, 
129 

Charles  II  offended  at  the  Maid's  Tragedy,  134 

Children  of  Her  Majesty's  Chapel,  Privy 
Council  required  permit  for  the,  160 

Children  of  Paul's,  Privy  Council  demand 
permit  for,  160;    not  to  play  in  Lent,  105 

Children  of  the  Chapel,  boy  singers  from  the 
Chapel  Royal,  32;  Nathaniel  Giles,  Mas- 
ter of,  33;  traveled,  36;  forbidden  to  act 
in  plays,  38,  196;  appropriated  The 
Spanish  Tragedy,  83;  acted  undisturbed, 
195-96;  allowed  special  privileges  and 
status,  196 

Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels,  Royal  patent 
to,  19,  61,  198,  232;  Chapel  Boys  ap- 
pointed, 37;  Eastward  Hoe  presented 
by,  61;  lost  the  Queen's  patronage, 
105;  in  trouble  for  producing  Biron' s 
Conspiracy  and  Bircn's  Tragedy,  105; 
authorized  to  play  in  Rosseter's  theater, 
199.  233 

Children  of  the  Revels,  Patent  to  the,  233 

Children  used  for  dramatic  purposes,  33; 
this  use  forbidden,  38 

Christmas  fees,  74 

Christ's  College,  Cambridge,  Pammachius 
performed  at,  6 

Christus  Triumplians  of  John  Foxe,  8 

Church  and  state,  Controversial  treatment  of 
affairs  of,  frowned  upon,  90,  01-92 

Church-robe,  Lender  of  a,  to  players,  com- 
mitted to  Marshalsea,  87 

Churches,  Plays  given  in,  42 

City,  see  London 

Classes  of  society,  What,  withheld  their 
approval  from  the  drama,  138,  140 

Clerkenwell  under  Justices  of  Middlesex,  145, 
180 

Clink,  Manor  or  Liberty  of  the,  143 

Coaches,  Press  of,  at  Burbage's  theater,  202, 
203;  orders  of  Council  regarding,  203; 
disturbance  of  public  service  by,  208; 
at  The  Fortune,  225 

Cobham,  Lord  (William  Brooke),  to  preserve 
order  in  Blackfriars,  146;  appointed  Lord 
Chamberlain,  184;    death  of,  184,  189 

Cockpit  Company  paid  for  a  Lenten  license, 

7S 
Cockpit  Theater.  William  Beeston's  company 
at,  83,  131;  D'Avenant  put  in  charge  of 
the,  206;  damaged  by  apprentices,  217; 
soldiers  arrest  players  at,  227;  D'Avenant's 
Opera  at  the,  229 


244 


Coke,  Justice,  on  players'  rights  to  perform, 
40  n;    on  Rosseter's  patent,  199-200 

Coke,  Thomas,  in  Earl  of  Worcester's  com- 
pany, 32 

Come  See  a  Wonder  acted  at  Red  Bull,  77 

Commission  on  removal  of  Blackfriars 
theater,  203 

Commissioners  for  Religion,  Three,  give 
license  for  printing  books,  84 

Commissions,  Various,  48-49,  50 

Common  Prayer,  see  Divine  service 

Companies,  see  Players 

Company  of  strangers  appearing  in  1623,  68, 

77 
Condell,  Henry,  in  the  King's  Men,  36 
Controversy  over  the  stage,  Effect  of,  on  the 

Puritans,  2 
Cornwallis,    Thomas,   granted    a   dispensing 

patent  to  license  gambling-houses,  45 
Cotton,  John,  and  others.  Failure  of,  to  secure 

patents  for  theater  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields, 

304-5 

Council,  The  royal,  and  the  municipal  gov- 
ernment, 2.    See  also  Privy  Council 

Court,  High  Commission,  complained  of  Jon- 
son's  Magnetic  Lady,  126 

Court  entertainments,  Master  of  the  Revels  in 
charge  of,  16,  17,  44;  given  by  outside 
companies,  23;  managing  of,  an  important 
duty,  46;  the  sole  concern  of  the  Master, 
48;  companies  used  for,  granted  special 
privileges,  58 

Coventry,  The  players  of,  appear  at  Leicester, 

27 

Cowley,  Abraham,  Herbert  licenses  a  book 
of  verses  by,  85 

Cowlye,  Richard,  in  the  King's  Men,  36 

Cranmer,  Interlude  played  at  house  of,  6 

Cromwell,  Richard,  ordered  an  investigation 
of  D'Avenant's  opera,  229 

Cromwell,  Thomas,  used  stage  as  weapon  in 
Protestant  cause,  6 

Crosse  Keys,  Punishment  of  Lord  Strange's 
Company  for  playing  at,  176-77;  Lord 
Hunsdon  asked  permission  for  his  com- 
pany to  play  at,  182,  207 

Crown,  Licensing  power  limited  to  the,  alone, 
28,  35,  45 ;  autocratic  power  exercised  by 
the,  34;  extended  system  of  formal 
patents,  36;  licensing  power  of,  obeyed 
in  London,  40;  authority  of,  paramount, 
148;  dealings  of,  with  the  Corporation  of 
London,  149,  150-51 

Cruelty  of  the  Spaniards  in  Peru,  by  D'Ave- 
nant,  produced  at  The  Cockpit,  219 

Curtain,  The,  to  be  torn  down,  60;  Justices 
of  Middlesex  to  censor  plays  at,  18,  60, 
100,  192;  not  especially  under  the  Master, 
61;  in  the  Liberty  of  Holywell,  143; 
erected  in  1576,  158;  plays  at,  suppressed 
in  Lent,  160;  denounced,  160,  168;  Lord 
Mayor  requests  pulling  down  of,  169; 
survived,  170;  ordered  demolished,  187, 
191;  authorized  theater  of  the  Queen's 
Company,  231,  232 


Daniel,  John,  Letters  of  Assistance  granted 
to,  for  his  provincial  children's  company, 
210,  233 

Daniel,  Samuel,  to  approve  plays,  19,  61; 
Buc's  consent  to  patent  to,  64 

Dates  expressed  in  the  new  style,  v 

D'Avenant,  Sir  William,  Patent  granted  to, 
for  a  new  theater,  43,  205-6;  Herbert's 
censoring  of  the  Wits  by,  127-28;  put  in 
charge  of  King's  and  Queen's  young  Com- 
pany, 132;  put  in  charge  of  The  Cock- 
pit, 206;  devised  a  new  entertainment  at 
Rutland  House,  229;  his  Siege  of  Rhodes, 
229;  The  Cruelly  of  the  Spaniards  in 
Peru  at   The  Cockpit,  229 

Davenport's  History  of  Henry  the  First 
licensed,  81 

David,  John,  and  company,  License  for,  re- 
fused to  Earl  of  Warwick,  165 

Daye's,  John,  Come  See  a  Wonder,  acted,  77; 
Isle  of  Gulls,  101 

De  Meretrice  Babylonica  of  Edward  VI,  8 

Decency  and  morality,  Censoring  not  con- 
cerned with,  13,  134;  Puritan  care  for,  in 
London,  16;  Puritan  notions  of,  did  not 
affect  the  Master,  89;  or  the  censor,  no, 
127;    City  Council's  concern  for,  156 

Deity,  Use  of  name  of,  in  plays,  forbidden, 
19,  90 

Dekker,  Thomas,  devised  a  Lord  Mayor's 
show,  217 

Derby's,  Earl  of,  company  of  players,  22; 
at  Leicester,  26 

Disorder  or  contempt  of  authority,  objects  of 
censorship,  89-90,  94 

Disorders,  incident  to  play-houses,  55-56, 
156-57;  great,  at  the  theaters,  178,  183- 
84,190-91;  less  frequent,  197;  ordinance 
against,  226 

Divine  service,  Performances  during,  for- 
bidden, 34,  158,  164,  165,  199,  208 

Dixon,  Thomas,  see  Cotton,  John 

Dobell,  S.,  on  the  Jonson  and  Chapman 
letters,  104 

Doctrines  in  question.  Discussion  of,  forbid- 
den, 5;  unauthorized  by  the  King  sup- 
pressed, 7-8;    forbidden  by  Mary,  10-11 

Donne's,  John,  Paradoxes,  Printing  of, 
licensed  by  Herbert,  85 

Drama,  Government  regulation  of  the,  under 
the  Tudors  and  Stuarts,  1;  general 
regulation  of  the,  by  the  central  govern- 
ment, 3,  4-43;  flourishing  in  Eng..mil  in 
1485,  4;  used  for  controversial  purposes, 
5;  approved  when  supporting  views  of  the 
Crown,  6;  serious  trouble  with  the,  9; 
removed  from  political  and  religious  con- 
troversy, 15;  powers  of  Master  of  the 
Revels  over  the,  17,  44-46;  patented 
companies  holding  monopoly  of,  68;  all 
regulation  of,  under  royal  patents  and 
Master  of  the  Revels,  107;  victory  for  the 
City  would  have  hindered  development 
of  the,  198 

Dramatists,  The,  without  the  censorship,  134; 


245 


would   have   been   more   scurrilous,    135; 

were  spokesmen  of  the  dominant   party, 

•35 
Drousiano,  Italian  comedian,  Privy  Council 

requests  a  permit  for,  150 
Drugs,  Sale  of,  licensed  by  Herbert,  70,  72 
Dudley,    Sir     Robert    (Earl    of     Leicester), 

Letter   of,  to    the    Earl    of    Shrewsbury, 

concerning  his  players,   15,  26 
Dyer,    Sir   Edward,  and    his    extortion    for 

grants,   45 
Dymock,    Sir    Edward,    and    others,    Case 

against,  in  the  Star  Chamber,  108 

East  India  Company,  ordered  picture  of  tor- 
tures of  the  English  at  Amboyna,  122 

East  Smithfield,  Precinct  of,  146 

Eastward  Hoe  presented  by  Children  of  the 
Queen's  Revels,  61;  attack  on  the  Scotch 
in,  101-2;  caused  Jonson's  imprisonment, 
102,  103,  104 

Edict  of  1533,  so-called,  an  error,  5 

Edward  VI  approved  extreme  Protestantism, 
8;  wrote  a  comedy  De  Meretrice  Baby- 
lonica,  8;  ceded  to  the  City  all  royal 
liberties  and  franchises  in  Southwark,  141; 
regulation  of  drama  during  reign  of,  9, 
Hi  152 

Elector  Palatine's  Company,  Patent  to,  64, 
232 

Elizabeth,  Lady,  patron  of  a  company,  38 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  The  memorable  Poor  Laws 
of,  1,  24,  27;  economic  system  of  monopo- 
lies under,  1 ;  situation  in  dramatic  world 
at  opening  of  reign  of,  13,  90-91;  procla- 
mation of,  concerning  plays,  14-15.  152; 
conciliatory  policy  of,  15,  91;  proclama- 
tion concerning  the  companies  of  noble- 
men, 26;  royal  patent  to  Earl  of  Leices- 
ter's company,  33-34,  49;  patents  of 
monopoly  granted  under,  39;  grants  a 
special  commission  to  Edmund  Tilney,  51; 
authority  of  Revels  Office  at  end  of  reign 
of,  61;  not  averse  to  representation  of 
current  political  events,  91;  fondness  of, 
for  character  of  Falstaff,  96;  and  the 
Essex  conspiracy,  08-09;  a  character  in 
Biroris  Conspiracy,  107;  fondness  of,  for 
dramatic  performances,  149,  155,  160, 
164,  179,  191;  driven  from  London  by  the 
plague,  162;  common  plays  not  fit  for, 
173;  all  plays  suppressed  five  days  before 
death  of,  106 

Elizabethan  drama,  Effect  of  the  censorship 
on  the,  89,  134-35;  essentially  non-con- 
troversial, 135;  hopelessly  abhorrent  to 
decency  and  morality,  229,  230 

Elizabethan  theaters,  Investigation  into  con- 
ditions surrounding  the,  1 ;  bitter  attacks 
on  the,  3.     See  Theaters 

Endymion,  Veiled  symbolism  discovered  in,  91 

English  Moor,  The,  by  A.  Brome,  played  by 
the  Queen's  Company,  129 

English  plays  prohibited  for  three  months, 
8-9 


English    Poor   L-iw    based    on    Statutes    of 

Elizabeth,  24 
Essex  conspiracy,  Noblemen  of  the,  3;    case 

of  the,  08-99 
Essex,  Earl  of,  Execution  of  the,  99 
Essex's,    Earl   of,   company   of   players,    22; 

Privy  Council  demand  a  permit  for,  160 
Evening  prayer,  Plays  allowed  after,  on  Holy 

Days,  20,  164,  165,  174,  208 
Exeter,  Mayor  of,  refused  a  company  of  men 

holding  a  patent  for  children,  41 

Falstaff,  Character  of,  06 

Famous  Victories  of  Henry  V,  96 

Fee  for  licensing  a  play,  79,  81 

Field's,  Nathaniel,  Amends  for  Ladies  per- 
formed at  Rosseter's  playhouse,  201 

Fines  to  be  devoted  to  the  poor  and  sick,  158, 
207 

Fleare,  The,  entered  in  Stationer's  Register 
licensed  by  Buc,  84 

Fleay,  F.  G.,  on  intervention  of  the  Bishop, 
19  n;  conjecture  of,  58  n,  97  n;  sugges- 
tion of,  65;  on  "licensing  of  a  book,"  79, 
80;  plays  entered  in  Stationers'  Register 
tabulated  by,  84  n;  on  Sir  Thomas  More, 
94  n;  on  Day's  Isle  of  Gulls,  101;  on  the 
imprisonment  of  Jonson  and  Chapman, 
104;  on  title  to  Second  Maiden's  Tragedy, 
109  n;  on  inn-yard  performances,  183  n; 
on  suppression  of  plays,  188;  on  laxity  of 
restriction,  ig4;  on  Rosseter's  patent,  199; 
on  the  plague,  213;  on  the  Patent  to  the 
Queen's  Company,  231-32 

Fleetwood,  Letter  of,  to  Burghley,  on  ap- 
prentices' insurrection,  94;  on  disciplining 
noblemen's  players,  160-70 

Fletcher,  Lawrence,  in  the  King's  Men,  36 

Fletcher's,  John,  Loyal  Subject,  revived  by 
King's  Company,  82;  Woman's  Prize,  or 
The  Tamer  Tamed,  124-26 

Flower  of  Friendship,  The,  by  Edmund 
Tilney,  50 

Foreign  nations,  Anything  reflecting  on, 
censored,  00 

Foreign  residents,  Insurrection  against,  de- 
picted in  Sir  Thomas  More,  93,  94 

Fortune,  The,  licensed  to  Henslowe,  59,  61; 
to  take  place  of  The  Curtain,  60,  191;  a 
privileged  theater,  61;  price  of  license  per 
month,  73 ;  rope  dancers  at,  75 ;  players  at, 
fined  for  disrespect  shown  to  religion,  130; 
in  the  Liberty  of  Finsbury,  143;  erection 
of,  189;  coaches  at,  225;  authorized 
theater  of  the  Prince's  Company,  232;  of 
the  Elector's  Company,  232 

Foxe,  John,  wrote  a  Christus  Triumphans,  8 

Foxe's  Martyrologie,  5 

France,  Queen  of,  satirized  by  Chapman, 
105-6 

Franchise,  Municipal,  in  control  of  the  guilds, 
138 

Frederick,  Elector,  took  over  Prince  Henry's 
players,  38 

Freedom  of  the  city,  how  obtained,  138 


246 


Freemen  voted  for  aldermen  and  councilmen 

of  London,  138 
French,  Popular  feeling  against  the,  04-95 
French  comedians  performed  at  The  Cockpit, 

205;    secured  royal  warrant  for  another 

playhouse  in  Drury  Lane,  205 
French   players,   23,   39;     had   special   royal 

permission,  68;    to  play  in  Lent,  75-76; 

subject  to  the  Master's  orders,  77 

Game  at  Chess  disapproved  by  Privy  Council, 
68;  Middleton's  expression  of  popular 
hatred  of  Spain  in  the,  119;  licensed  and 
suppressed,  119;  Secretary  Conway's  let- 
ter to  Privy  Council  on  the,  110-20;  copy 
of,  licensed  by  Herbert,  120;  playing  of, 
forbidden,  121;  exceptional  popularity  of, 
lig,  122,  135 

Gamester,  The,  by  Shirley,  Plot  of,  suggested 
by  Charles  I,  127  n 

Gaming,  Herbert's  efforts  for  right  to  license, 
72 

Gaming-houses,  Thomas  Cornwallis  granted 
a  patent  to  license,  45 

Gardiner,  S.  R.,  on  the  Political  elements  in 
Massinger,  123-24 

Gardiner,  S.,  Bishop,  offended  by  anti-papal 
tragedy  Pammachius,  6 

Garrard,  George,  Letter  of,  to  Wentworth, 
on  the  new  regulation,  203;  on  conflict  of 
jurisdictions,  214 

Gentlemen,  Mere,  not  allowed  licensing 
power,  26,  27 

Gentry,  The  censor's  consideration  for  the 
feelings  of  the,  in 

Giles,  Nathaniel,  Master  of  the  Chapel  Chil- 
dren, Complaint  against,  33;  warrant  to, 
forbids  children  acting  in  plays,  38 

Globe  Theater,  The,  3,  37,  38;  profit  on 
performance  of  Pericles  at,  given  to  Her- 
bert, 76;  performance  of  Ricliard  II  at, 
for  the  Essex  conspirators,  98-99; 
Game  at  Chess  acted  at,  119;  in  the 
Liberty  of  the  Clink,  143;  constructed 
from  material  of  The  Theater,  188  n  ; 
selected  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
Company,  191;  authorized  theater  of 
the  King's  Company,  201,  231,  233, 
234;  closed  on  account  of  expected  riot, 
204 

Gloucester,  Duke  of,  see  Richard  III 

Golding  Lane,  Playhouse  allowed  at,  186,  100, 
191 

Gondomar,  Spanish  ambassador,  Popular 
hatred  of,  1 18-19;  personated  in  the 
Game  at  Chess,  119,  121 

Gosson's  Sclwols  of  Abuse,  159,  209,  219; 
Playes  Confuted,  219 

Government,  Remarks  hostile  to,  censored,  90 

Gowry  produced  by  the  King's  Company, 
100-1;    references  to,  115 

Great  Duke  of  Florence,  The,  by  Massinger, 
portrayed  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  123 

Great  Seal,  Patents  granted  under  the,  33- 
34.  49.  155.  198,  231,  232,  233 


Grindal,  E.,  Bishop  of  London,  appealed  to 

Privy  Council  to  stop  all  plays,  152,  211; 

a  representative  Puritan,  215 
Guild  rights,  Strange  relics  of,  2 
Guilds,    Cycles    of    mysteries    presented    by 

trades,  22;    organization  and  functions  of 

the,  138-39 
Gunpowder  Plot,  Reference  to,  115 
Gunter's  house,  a  meeting  place  of  the  Essex 

conspirators,  99 

Haysell,  chief  player  of  Earl  of  Worcester's 
company,  53-54 

Hayward  purchased  deputyship  from  Her- 
bert, 86 

Hennings,  John,  in  the  King's  Men,  36;  paid 
Herbert  for  a  courtesy,  76 

Henry  IV  first  produced,  06 

Henry  VII,  had  company  of  players,  4,  23 

Henry  VIII,  Policies  of,  aroused  spirit  of 
revolt,  5;  letter  of,  to  Justice  of  the  Peace 
in  York,  6-7;  reaction  of,  against  Prot- 
estantism, 7;  had  a  company  of  players, 
23;  proclamation  of,  against  vagabonds, 
25;    on  the  liberties  of  Blackfriars,  144 

Henry,  Prince,  took  over  the  Admiral's 
players,  37;   death  of,  38 

Henryson,  William,  in  Earl  of  Worcester's 
company,  32 

Henslowe,  P.,  manager  of  The  Rose,  paid 
license  fees  to  Tilney,  57,  79;  paid  for 
license  of  The  Fortune,  59;  loans  of,  to 
the  Company,  80 

Henslowe's  Diary,  Discussion  of  entries  in, 
79-80;  forgeries  in,  on  Nash's  Isle  of 
Dogs,  98 

Her  Majesty's  Players,  Company  of,  selected 
by  Tilney,  32,  166-67;  performed  within 
Mayor's  jurisdiction,  168-69;  before  the 
Recorder,  169;  number  and  names  of, 
demanded  by  City  authorities,  174.  See 
also  Queen's  Majesty's  Players,  Queen's 
Servants 

Her  Majesty's  Servants  of  her  Royal  Chamber 
at  Bristol,  38;   patent  to,  233 

Herbert,  Sir  Henry,  Master  of  the  Revels, 
Intermeddling  of,  in  dramatic  affairs,  46; 
claims  of,  under  patent  as  Master,  47; 
cites  Tilney,  60;  claims  based  on  patents 
granted,  64,  66  n;  purchased  Reveis 
Office,  65,  87;  family  of,  66;  Office  at 
height  of  power  under,  66;  his  suit  after 
the  Restoration,  66  n;  received  orders  to 
suppress  plays  during  plague,  68;  limita- 
tion of  jurisdiction  of,  68-69;  sold  special 
licenses,  60;  requires  Mayor  of  Maidstone 
to  uphold  his  license,  71-72;  tries  to  ex- 
tend powers  of  Office,  72-73;  benefit  per- 
formances and  fees  for,  74-75;  gratuities 
to,  from  players,  76;  claimed  that  fee  was 
for  trouble  in  reading  a  play,  81;  burned 
a  play,  81;  gives  greater  care  to  old 
plays,  82;  licensed  plays  entered  in 
Stationers'  Register,  85;  before  the  Star 
Chamber    for    licensing    Donne's    Para- 


247 


doxes,  85;  statements  of,  as  to  his  receipts, 
87-88;  death  of,  88;  "reformations"  of, 
11S;  held  responsible  for  licensing  Game 
at  Chess,  120;  saved  by  Pembroke,  121; 
threatened  King's  players  for  performing 
the  Sfomsh  Viceroy  without  license,  77, 
taa;  letter  of,  to  Mr.  Knight,  12s;  had 
trouble  about  Jonson'sMagneticLady,  126; 
commends  Shirley's  young  Admiral,  127; 
his  ''reformation"  of  D'Avenant's  Wits 
revised  by  King  Charles,  127-28;  energy 
of,  in  eliminating  oaths,  128-20;  on  King 
Charles'  expurgation  of  Massinger's  King 
and  Subject,  120-30;  last  entry  in  his 
Office  Book,  132 

Herbert's  Office  Book,  64;  portions  of,  sur- 
vive, 66;  entry  regarding  license  to  King's 
Company,  60;  warrant  entries  in,  70; 
gratuity  mentioned  in,  76;  shows  receipts 
for  licensing  books  of  poetry,  85;  on 
Beeston's  Company,  131;  plague  entries 
in.  213 

Herbert's  Register,  see  Herbert's  Office  Book 

Heywood,  Thomas,  sums  up  errors  against 
which  dramatists  must  be  on  guard,  132- 
33;   devised  a  Lord  Mayor's  show,  217 

Historia  Histrionica  on  persistency  of  the 
players,  227 

History  of  Henry  the  First  by  Davenport 
licensed,  81 

History  of  the  Duchess  of  Suffolk  full  of 
dangerous  matter,  81 

Histriomastix,  William  Prynne's,  76;  full 
tide-page  of,  220 

Hog,  The,  hath  Lost  his  Pearl,  by  Taylor, 
Some  actors  of,  imprisoned,  1 12-13; 
licensed  by  Buc,  112,  133 

Holbom  under  the  Justices  of  Middlesex,  145, 
180 

Holinshed  on  proclamation  by  Elizabeth,  14 

Holland  House  at  Kensington,  Plays  per- 
formed at,  227 

Holmes,  Request  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  for 
a  right  for,  to  license  playing-places,  153-54 

Holy  Days,  Plays  forbidden  on,  until  after 
evening  prayer,  164,  165,  174,  208 

Holy  names,  Act  forbidding  profane  use  of, 
in  plays,  10-20,  00 

Honest  Man's  Fortune,  The,  revived  on 
entreaty  of  Joseph  Taylor,  82 

Hope  or  Bear  Garden,  The,  in  the  Liberty  of 
the  Clink,  143 

Hours  of  performances,  Regulation  of,  20,  34, 
164,  165,  174,  182,  100,  208 

Householders,  Armed  watch  of,  organized, 
145,  180 

Howard,  Henry,  Earl  of  Northampton, 
accused  Jonson  of  "poperie  and  treason," 
103 

Hull,  The  players  of,  appear  in  Leicester,  27 

Hunsdon,  George,  Lord,  signer  of  petition 
against  Blackfriars  playhouse,  185;  made 
Lord  Chamberlain,  180 

Hunsdon,  Lord,  head  of  commission  on  gov- 
ernment of  Blackfriars  and  Whitefriars, 


145;  owner  of  The  Theater  claimed  pro- 
tection of,  against  Recorder  Fleetwood, 
160-70;  request  of,  for  his  company  to 
play  at  Cross  Keys,  182-83;   death  of,  184 

Indebtedness,-  Acknowledgment  of,  v-vi 

Inhabitants  of  London,  Number  of,  140 

Injunctions  of  1550,  84 

Inn-yard  performances,  Conditions  surround- 
ing, 156;  suppressed,  165 

Inn-yards,  Demand  for  license  to  play  in,  153; 
plays  given  in,  159;  Queen's  Players  ask 
leave  to  act  in,  171;  plays  in,  175;  plays 
stopped  in,  184,  192,  197 

Inns  of  Court,  Plays  by  the  young  lawyers  of, 
22 

Insurrection,  Censor  objects  to  references  to, 

93-95 
Interludes,  Playing  of,  forbidden,  5;  to  spread 

Protestant  doctrine  encouraged  by  officials, 

6;    prohibited  for  three  months,  8-9,  14; 

forbidden  on  the  Sabbath,  20 
Isle  of  Dogs  by  T.  Nash,  Privy  Council  on 

the,  97-98 
Isle  of  Gulls,  by  John  Day,  101 
Italian    players,    Privy    Council   requested   a 

permit  for,  from  the  Mayor,  153,  159 

James  I,  Economic  system  of  monopolies 
under,  1;  accession  of,  18;  issued  the 
Book  of  Sports,  20;  conditions  under, 
differed  from  those  under  Elizabeth,  35; 
issued  patent  to  Shakspere's  Company  as 
the  King's  Men,  36-37;  patents  of 
monopoly  sold  under,  39;  position  of 
Master  of  Revels  strengthened  under,  61; 
boldness  of  players  in  early  years  of  reign 
of,  100-8;  popular  attitude  towards,  100; 
references  to,  in  Bamevell,  unfailingly  re- 
spectful, 115;  friendship  of,  with  Spain, 
1 18-19;  plays  stopped  two  days  before 
arrival  of,  in  London,  196;  issued  and 
stayed  order  for  patent  to  John  Cotton,  204 

Jesuit  plotting  set  forth  by  Middleton  in  his 
Game  at  Chess,  119 

John,  King,  An  interlude  touching,  played  at 
house  of  Cranmer,  6 

Johnes,  Rye',  in  Earl  of  Worcester's  com- 
pany, 32 

Johnson,  One,  paid  by  Leicester  officials  not 
to  collect  penalty  for  unlawful  games,  57 

Johnson,  William,  in  Earl  of  Leicester's 
company,  33 

Joiners,  A  company  of,  in  trouble,  for  playing 
on  Sunday,  151 

Jones,  Inigo,  complained  of  being  represented 
in  Jonson's  Tale  of  a  Tub,  124 

Jonson,  Ben,  granted  reversion  of  the  Master- 
ship, 64-65;  imprisoned  for  writing  against 
the  Scots  in  Eastward  Hoe,  102,  103; 
various  incarcerations  of,  because  of  his 
plays,  102-5;  the  Poetaster,  102-3; 
Sejanus,  103;  banqueted  his  friends,  103; 
newly  discovered  letters  of,  104,  104  n; 
chronologer  of  London,  217 


248 


Jonson's  Bartholomew  Fair  ridicules  inter- 
preting plays,  133 

Jonson's  Magnetic  Lady,  Players  made  inter- 
polations in,  78;  licensed,  81;  offensive 
personalities  and  oaths  in,  126 

Jonson's  Tale  of  a  Tub  censored,  134 

Justices  of  Essex  reprimanded,  12 

Justices  of  Middlesex  directed  to  exercise 
censorship,  18;  Master  of  the  Rolls  one 
of  the,  54;  to  stop  plays  in  London,  58; 
ordered  to  enforce  rules,  60;  to  censor 
plays  at  The  Curtain,  60,  100,  192;  to 
suppress  all  plays  in  Lent,  160,  210; 
appealed  to  by  the  Lord  Mayor,  160-61; 
form  of  order  sent  to,  180-81;  ordered  to 
stop  plays  and  demolish  theaters,  187; 
opposed  to  Alleyn  and  Henslowe's  new 
theater,  190 

Justices  of  the  Peace,  Two,  to  try  cases  for 
spreading  unorthodoxy,  8;  ordered  to  exer- 
cise censorship  over  plays,  11-12,  13,  14; 
to  punish  vagabonds,  26;  two  could 
license  players,  27,  30 

Justices  of  the  Peace  of  Surrey  ordered  to 
suspend  performances  in  theaters,  54,  58, 
175;  to  demolish  theaters,  188;  to  guard 
against  riot  at  The  Globe,  204 

Kentish  Street,  Precinct  of,  under  Justices  of 
Surrey,  145 

Killigrew,  Thomas,  became  Master  after 
death  of  Herbert,  88 

King,  A,  and  No  King,  by  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  stopped  by  sheriffs,  224 

King  and  Subject,  by  Massinger,  expurgated 
by  King  Charles,  129;  Herbert  on,  120-30 

King,  the,  Nothing  to  be  printed  in  English 
without  permission  of,  9;  defamation  of, 
to  be  punished,  9,  90;  commands  of, 
transmitted  to  players  through  the  Mas- 
ter, 67;  allowed  French  company  to  play 
in  Lent,  75-76;  Beaumont  complains  of 
players  satirizing  the  English,  107-8;  dis- 
respect to,  shown  by  Beeston's  Company, 

131-32 
King's  Company  of  Players,  The,  4;  af 
Leicester,  26;  patent  issued  to  Shakspere's 
Company  as  the  King's  Men,  36-37,  231; 
other  patents  modeled  on,  38;  to  play  also 
at  Blackfriars,  38;  under  the  Master's 
authority,  64;  patent  of,  to  travel,  69; 
Herbert's  warrant  of  protection  to,  69-70; 
gave  benefits  for  Herbert,  74,  76;  paid 
Christmas  and  Lenten  fees,  74-75,  an; 
apology  to  Herbert  for  acting  The  Spanish 
Viceroy,  77;  licensed  Davenport's  His- 
tory of  Henry  the  First,  81 ;  Winter's  Tale 
revived  by,  without  fee,  81;  Tamer 
Tamed  revived  by,  suppressed  by  Herbert, 
82;  Fletcher's  Loyal  Subject  revived  by, 
82;  took  The  Malcontent  of  the  Chapel 
Children,  83;  paid  Herbert  to  forbid  the 
playing  of  Shakspere,  83;  plays  of,  printed 
without  their  consent,  85;  indiscreet  in 
producing  Gowry,  100-1;    acted  Game  at 


Chess  at  The  Globe,  119;  forbidden  to 
play,  120;  restored  to  favor,  121;  at 
Burbage's  playhouse,  198,  201;  new 
patent  to,  authorizing  playhouse  at  Black- 
friars, 202;  plague  provisions  in  patents 
to,  212-13;  patents  to,  36-37,  231,  233, 
234 

King's  Council,  Any  two  of  the,  authorized 
to  try  cases  for  unauthorized  views,  8 

Kings,  modern  Christian,  Players  forbidden 
to  represent,  90,  101,  107,  119;  reference 
to  vices  of,  censored,  109-10 

Kirkhara,  Edward,  and  others,  Warrant  to, 
232 

Knight,  Letter  of  Herbert  to,  125 

Kyd,  Thomas,  arrested,  imprisoned,  and 
tortured,  95;   released,  96 

Laborers,  Statutes  of,  against  vagabonds,  24 

Lady  Elizabeth's  Company  in  Rosseter's 
theater,  199,  233;  acted  Amends  for 
Ladies,  201;    patent  to,  233 

Lady  Mother,  The,  licensed  by  Blagrave,  78 

Lady  Saunder's  house  in  Blackfriars,  199, 
200 

Lambarde,  William,  and  Queen  Elizabeth  on 
the  Essex  conspiracy,  99 

Lanham,  John,  in  Earl  of  Leicester's  com- 
pany, 33 

Latin  plays  not  under  censorship,  13 

Lau,  Hurfries  de,  Warrant  to,  for  a  playhouse, 
20s 

Laud,  Appeal  to  Bishop,  against  Blackfriars 
theater,  202-3 

Laws  and  regulations,  national  and  local, 
affecting  the  drama,  1;  how  their  develop- 
ment is  shown,  3;  national,  4-43;  passed 
to  make  profitable  grants  of  right  to  break, 

45 
Lea,  Robert,  and  others,  Patent  to,  233 
Leather,  Sale  of  grants  to  break  regulations 

made  about  tanning,  45 
Leek,  Sir   Francis,  claimed  as  patron  by  a 

company  of   players,   25;    his  livery  and 

badge  worn,  31-32 
Le  Febure,  M.,  King's  warrant  to,  for  theater 

in  Drury  Lane,  205 
Legislation  and  regulation,  Development  of, 

3;    on  the  content  of  plays,  7;    reserved 

licensing   of    plays   to   Crown   and   Privy 

Council,   13;    general,  affecting  licensing 

of  plays,   10-21;    possibilities  of  evasion 

of,  41 
Leicester,  Earl  of,  a  representative  Puritan, 

"5 

Leicester,  Many  traveling  companies  appeared 
in,  26;  companies  under  license  of  Master 
of  Revels  at,  35,  40,  70;  payments  at,  for 
players'  right  to  perform,  40;  noblemen's 
licenses  accepted  in,  41;  company  at, 
with  license  from  Tilney  in  1583,  53,  70; 
no  other  under  license  of  blaster  at,  till 
1623,  54,  70;  officials  of,  paid  one  John- 
son for  not  collecting  penalty  for  unlawful 
games,  57 


249 


Ix-icester's,  Earl  of,  Company,  15;  royal 
patent  issued  to,  16,  155.  mi;  copy  of 
patent,  33-34.  I55i  208;  company 
afterwards  Shakspere's,  33;  granted 
special  favors  under  the  Master,  49-50, 
58;  performed  at  The  Theater,  158; 
Privy  Council  required  permit  for,  160; 
mistaken  for  Queen's  by  Collier,  171 

Lennox,  Duke  of,  Company  authorized  by, 
41  n 

Lent.  Regulations  regarding  eating  flesh  in, 
enforced,  54  n;  Council  issued  orders  for 
closing  theaters  in,  68;  performances 
allowed  in,  by  special  license  from  the 
Master,  44,  75;  and  King,  75-76;  first 
law  against  performances  in,  160;  rule 
against  performances  in,  192,  210-11 

Lenten  dispensations,  74,  75,  211 

Lenten  performances  distasteful  to  the  Puri- 
tans, 76,  200,  211 

Letters  of  Assistance  granted  to  John  Daniel, 
210,  233 

Liberties  of  Blackfriars  and  Whitefriars, 
144-48;  no  officials  in  charge  of,  145; 
finally  under  jurisdiction  of  the  Lord 
Mayor,  146;  exemptions  for  inhabitants 
of.  147 

Liberties,  on  Middlesex  side  of  the  Thames, 
north  of  the  wall,  143;  puzzling,  scat- 
tered through  the  City  proper,  143-45; 
players  seek  refuge  in  the,  158-59;  Mayor 
begged  that  plays  be  stopped  in  the,  161 

Liberty,  A,  and  "Liberties"  defined,  142 

Liberty  of  Finsbury,  The  Fortune  theater 
in  the,  143;  under  Middlesex  Justices, 
144;  inhabitants  of,  approve  of  a  new 
playhouse,  100 

Liberty  of  Holywell,  Theaters  in  the,  143, 
158;  under  Middlesex  Justices,  144 

Liberty  of  the  Clink,  Three  theaters  in  the, 
143;  under  Justices  of  Survey,  145; 
Sunday  law  violated  in,  175,  209 

License,  A  formal  written,  granted,  28; 
copy  of,  granted  by  Earl  of  Worcester,  32 

Licenses,  All,  abolished  by  Parliament,  226 

Licenses,  noblemen's,  Abolition  of,  35,  38; 
law  against,  not  fully  enforced,  40-41 

Licenses,  Royal,  bought  and  sold,  31  n, 
41-42;  less  formal,  granted  indirectly, 
34,  36;    various,  sold  by  the  Master,  69, 

72 

Licensing  "of  a  book"  probably  meant  for 
performance,  70-80 

Licensing  of  players,  4,  21-42;  letter  of  Sir 
Robert  Dudley  asking  for,  15;  authority 
over,  given  to  Master  of  the  Revels,  16- 
17;  no  provision  for,  by  statute  till  1572,  21 ; 
grew  out  of  their  protection  as  retainers 
of  nobles,  22;  first  definite  system  of, 
24;  operation,  26,  27;  authority  for, 
limited  to  the  Crown,  28,  45;  more 
regularity  and  rigor  in,  31;  monopoly  to 
favored  companies,  36;  company  with  a 
commission  under  the  Great  Seal  of  Eng- 
land, 41 


Licensing  of  playing  places,  4,  45-43;  au- 
thority over,  given  to  the  Master,  16-17; 
earliest,  an  affair  of  the  church,  42, 
Crown  and  Privy  Council  supreme  in, 
42;  royal  patents  extended  to,  43;  fads 
concerning,  not  clear.  7  \;  monthly  fees 
for,  not  [xiid  under  Herbert,  74;  request 
for  grant  of  privilege  of,  to  one  Holmes, 
153;  letter  from  Mayor  and  Corporation 
in  reply,  154 

Licensing  of  plays,  4-21;  first  delegation  of 
the  power  of,  12;  system  of,  established 
by  Elizabeth,  14-15;  authority  of  Master 
of  the  Revels  over,  17;  general  legisla- 
tion affecting  the,  19-21;  in  London, 
52,  157-58;  a  most  important  function 
of  the  Master,  76;   fee  received  for,  79 

Licensing  power,  Absolute,  over  plays, 
players,  and  playhouses,  2,  3;  exercised 
by  Justices  of  the  Peace  and  local  officers, 
11-12;  granted  to  Master  of  the  Revels, 
16-17;  concentration  of,  in  the  Crown, 
33>  3S~30'.  germ  of  the  Master's,  49;  no 
effort  made  to  extend,  50;  Herbert  tried 
to  make  his,  general  and  exclusive,  72-73 

Lieutenant  of  the  Tower,  146 

Lincoln,  Henry,  Earl  of,  Case  of,  against  Sir 
Edward  Dymock  and  others,  for  a  libel- 
lous performance,  108 

Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  Attempts  to  secure  a 
theater  at,  204-5 

Livery  Companies,  Government  of  London 
in  hands  of  the,  138;  twelve  great  guilds 
called,  138,  139;  names  of,  misleading, 
139;  membership  largely  of  non-crafts- 
men, 139;  members  of  the  upper  middle 
class,  140 

Locke,  Thomas,  Letters  of,  to  Carleton,  on 
the  performance  of  Barnnell,  1 14 

London,  Long  controversy  over  plays  in, 
2,  3;  confused  organization  of  govern- 
ment of,  2;  local  regulations  in,  3;  cen- 
sorship in,  4;  English  plays  forbidden  in, 
9;  Privy  Council,  requests  that  plays  be 
allowed  in,  17,  42;  Master  of  the  Revels 
censor  in,  18;  Earl  of  Leicester's  Company 
to  play  in,  34;  royal  favor  secured  privi- 
leges in,  35;  arrival  of  James  in,  36; 
monopoly  of  playing  in,  39;  admission 
of  actors  into,  53;  suppression  of  plays  in, 
54.  55,  58,  108,  176,  181;  chapter  on 
local  regulations  in,  1 543-1 792,  137-77; 
municipal  government  and  topographical 
limits  of,  137;  constitution  of  the  city 
government,  137-38;  controlled  by  the 
upper  middle  class,  140;  topographical 
limits  of,  140-41;  maps  of,  140  n;  di- 
visions of,  141;  Liberties  of,  142;  new 
charter  granted  to,  by  James  I,  146-47; 
conflict  concerning  admission  of  plays  into, 
140;  first  expression  of  Puritan  attitude 
in,  152;  chapter  on  local  regulations  in, 
1502-1642,  178-214;  our  sympathy 
with,  in  the  struggle,  198;  a  great  center 
of  Puritanism,  216 


250 


London,  Aldermen  of,  call  on  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  to  influence  Tilney  to  stop 
[days,  55-56,  170;  complain  of  being 
libeled  at  The  Red  Bull,  130-31;  one 
alderman  chosen  annually  from  each 
ward,  138 

London,  Bishop  of,  as  Ordinary,  12-13,  i52', 
forbade  production  of  Barnevell,  19,  114; 
arranged  for  players  to  contribute  for 
parish  poor,  60,  207;  and  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  censors  and  licensers  of 
printed  books,  84;  unsuccessful  appeal  to 
Laud  against  Burbage's  theater,  203 

London,  City  authorities  of,  opposed  to  plays, 
150-51,  154;  sometimes  lax,  151; 
overridden  by  patent  to  Earl  of  Leicester's 
players,  33-34,  155;  order  of  December 
6,  1574,  156,  174,  207;  chief  arguments 
of,  against  plays,  156-57;  orders  of, 
prohibiting  plays,  158-59,  163-64;  re- 
sume war  against  plays,  160;  character- 
istically Puritan,  164;  suppressed  inn- 
yard  performances,  166;  reply  to  petition 
of  Queen's  players,  171-74;  letter  of 
disputing  players'  Articles,  172-73;  the 
Remedies,  173,  174;  made  no  effort  to 
suppress  unlawful  plays,  194-95;  gave 
way  to  royal  regulation  and  authoriza- 
tion, 197;  complained  against  Rosseter's 
Theater,  199 

London  Common  Council,  Order  of,  on 
censorship,  15-16;  not  carried  out  con- 
sistently, 17;  complains  of  abuse  of 
special  privileges,  41;  given  orders  by 
Privy  Council,  42 ;  four  councilmen  chosen 
annually  from  each  ward,  138;  ordinance 
of  1574  regulating  dramatic  performances 
in  London,  156-58,  159;  orders  of, 
against  plays,  160,  163-64 

London,  Corporation  of,  opposed  to  Master 
of  the  Revels,  52;  how  controlled  by  the 
Livery  Companies,  138;  officially  sub- 
mitted to  royal  will  in  dramatic  matters, 
149;  ordered  Burbage's  theater  closed,  202 

London  drama,  Master  of  Revels  supervising 
the,  54,  55;  regulation  of,  in  reigns  of 
Edward  VI  and  Mary,  152 

London,  "Liberties"  of,  defined,  and  their 
location,  142-45 

London,  Lord  Mayor  of.  Endeavors  of  the, 
to  suppress  theaters,  2-3;  ordered  to 
arrest  players  and  stop  plays,  12;  to 
appoint  censors,  16,  17,  52;  requested  to 
name  member  of  commission  on  censor- 
ing, 18,  55;  ordered  to  suspend  per- 
formances, 54;  efforts  of,  to  buy  off 
licensing  plays,  56-57;  ordered  to  enforce 
rules,  60;  to  suppress  plays  in  Lent, 
60,  210;  elected  annually,  i.}8;  theaters 
erected  just  outside  the  jurisdiction  of 
the,  140;  boundaries  of  jurisdiction  of, 
140-41;  took  formal  possession  of  South- 
wark,  141;  orders  sent  to,  by  Privy 
Council,  58,  144,  145;  jurisdiction  of, 
148;      guardian    of    morals    of    citizens, 


150;  Roger  Ascham  on  the,  151;  appeals 
of,  to  Privy  Council,  against  actors,  151; 
letter  of,  and  Corporation,  to  the  Lord 
Chamberlain,  on  right  to  license  playing 
places,  154,  206;  asked  by  Council  for 
reasons  for  restraining  plays,  154-55; 
required  to  admit  the  comedy  players 
within  the  City,  155-56;  reproof  to  the 
puritanical,  from  the  Council,  156;  ap- 
peals to  Privy  Council  against  The  Theater, 
161-62;  demands  of  noblemen  on,  165; 
requested  the  Court  to  suppress  The 
Theater  and  The  Curtain,  169;  dif- 
ficulty of,  in  stopping  plays  in  London, 
176;  demands  suppression  of  all  plays 
in  and  about  the  City,  183-84,  187, 
192;  censured  by  the  Lords  for  not  en- 
forcing orders,  193;  ordered  by  Parlia- 
ment to  suppress  plays,  224 

London  stage.  Royal  and  municipal  legis- 
lation affecting  the,  198;  summary  of 
chief  lines  of  legislation  on  the,  206-14 

Long  Parliament,  Ordinances  of  the,  3,  218, 
222-26 

Lord  Chamberlain,  Master  of  Revels  subordi- 
nate to  the,  16,  47,  85;  exercised  authority 
over  the  drama,  ig;  issued  tickets  of 
privilege,  39,  69  n;  in  charge  of  the  Sov- 
ereign's amusements,  46;  G.  Chapman's 
letter  to,  61;  "Declaration  of  the  Ancient 
Powers  of  the  [Revels]  Office,"  65;  order 
of,  for  suppression  of  plays,  68;  order 
that  all  players  must  have  license  from 
the  Master,  73;  confirms  to  Wm.  Beeston's 
Company  right  to  certain  plays,  83; 
on  Jonson's  Tale  of  a  Tub,  124;  order 
regarding  Wm.  Beeston's  Company, 
131;  request  of,  for  grant  to  license 
playing-places  for  one  Holmes,  153; 
conflict  with   Bishop  of   Canterbury,  214 

Lord  Chamberlain's  Company  (Shakspere's), 
Patent  issued  to,  as  the  King's  Mm, 
36-37,  231;  authorized  to  play,  58,  189; 
expected  to  obey  the  Master,  60;  The 
Spanish  Tragedy  of  the,  appropriated 
by  the  Chapel  Children,  83;  and  the 
Essex  conspiracy,  98-99;  played  before 
Queen  Elizabeth,  99;  Privy  Council 
require  permit  for,  160;  ask  permission 
to  play  at  Cross  Keys,  182-83,  207,  208; 
selected  The  Globe,  iqi,  231 

Lord  Chancellor  advised  against  patent  for 
theater  in  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  205 

Lord  Govertuuncc  and  Lady  Publike-Wele, 
morality  by  John  Roo,  5 

Lord  Lieutenants  to  exercise  supervision, 
12,  14;  granted  license  to  Earl  of  Leices- 
ter's players,  15 

Lord  Mayor's  shows.  Dramatic  character  of 
many,  217 

Lord  Protector's  company  at   Leicester,  27 

Lord  Secretary's  company  of  players  af 
Leicester,  26 

Lordship  of  Finsbury,  set  Liberty  of  Fins- 
bury 


251 


Louis  XI IT  assumed  responsibility  for  death 

of  Marquess  d'Ancre,  113 
Lowins  apologised  t"  Herbert,  135 
l     ■:  Subjoct,  by  Fletcher,  licensed  by  Buc, 

reformed    by  Herbert,  allowed   to    King's 

Company,  8a 
Luther.  .1  character  in  a  play,  6 

Lydd,  Visits  of  players  to,  23 
Lyly,  John,  hoped  for  the  Mastership,  62  n; 
his  Pappe  with  a  Halehett,  01 

Magnetic  Lady,  Jonson's,  Players  made 
inter[H)!ations  in,  78;  licensed,  81;  made 
trouble  for  Herbert  126 

Maid  of  Honor,  The,  by  Massinger,  Political 
significance  of,  124 

Maid's  Tragedy,  The,  134 

Maidstone.  Mayor  of,  refuses  to  permit 
licensed  players  to  perform,  71;  re- 
buked by  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  71-72 

Malcontent,  The,  of  the  Chapel  Children, 
taken  by  the  King's  Men,  83 

Maria,  the  Infanta,  Project  of  marriage  of, 
with  Prince  Charles,  118 

Marlowe,  Christopher,  arrested    killed,  06 

Marquis  of  Dorset's  company  licensed,  10 

Martin  Marprelate  Controversy,  17,  176; 
treated  on  the  stage,  55;  first  case  of 
rigorous  interference  by  the  authorities, 
91;  plays  against  Martin  refused  a  license, 
91;  resulted  in  appointment  of  censorship 
commission.  177 

Martinists  ridiculed  on  the  stage,  17;  violent 
dramatic  attacks  on  the,  91 

Mary,  Queen,  Proclamation  of,  in  1553,  5, 
io-ii,  152;  anti-Protestant  plays  on  ac- 
cession and  marriage  of,  10 

Mary's,  Princess,  players  in  Leicester,  26 

Massinger,  Philip,  in  trouble  over  Believe 
as  You  List,  122-24;  licensed  as  revised, 
123;  Gardiner  on  political  elements  in, 
123-24;  protected  by  Pembroke,  124; 
difficulty  about  licensing  King  and  Subject 
of,  129 

Massinger's  Believe  as  You  List  refused  a 
license  by  Herbert,  81 

Master  of  the  King's  Games  of  Bears,  Bulls 
and  Dogs,  Royal  patents  to,  46 

Master  of  the  King's  Revels,  2;  official 
administration  of  the  censorship,  3; 
place  of  the,  in  general  history  of  censor- 
ship, 16;  patent  issued  to  in  1581, 
16-17,  35,  51.  163;  authority  of,  estab- 
lished slowly,  17,  18;  power  of,  in  and 
about  London,  18,  35,  52;  active  under 
Stuart  rule,  18-19;  gave  indirect  royal 
authorization,  35;  established  right  in 
country  at  large,  35;  licensed  companies 
to  travel,  35,  40,  53,  70;  rights  granted  to, 
reserved,  38;  extended  exercise  of  his 
powers,  39,  45,  55;  had  power  to  license 
playing- places,  43.  73-74;  chapter  on 
the,  44-88;  sold  licenses,  44,  211; 
licensed  traveling  players,  43,  70,  72 ; 
tracing  development  of  power  of,  difficult. 


46;  first  appeared  under  Henry  VII, 
46-47;  sir  I  bonus  Cawarden  made 
permanent  Master  in  1545,  47;  powers 
conferred  in  patent,  47;  busied  solely  with 
court    entertainments,    48;      reforms    in 

Office  of,  recom mended,  48-49;  exam- 
ined companies  and  plays  for  approval, 
49;  natural  person  to  exercise  liicnsing 
power,  50;  Edmund  Tilney  appointed, 
So;  given  power  to  summon  players, 
51-S2;  to  license  plays,  players  and  play- 
houses, 52,  55;  held  responsible  by 
Council  for  regulation  of  theaters  in 
London,  54;  order  sent  to  in  1598,  58; 
payments  to,  by  Henslowe,  59,  61;  ex- 
ercised a  general  jurisdiction  60;  re- 
lations of ,  with  Privy  Council,  60;  position 
of,  strengthened,  61;  commission  to  Sir 
George  Buc  as,  62-63;  authority  granted 
to,  in  patents,  63-64;  Sir  John  Astley 
and  Ben  Jonson  granted  reversion  of 
Mastership,  64-65;  Sir  Henry  Herbert 
recognized  as,  65;  fee  of,  67;  higher 
authorities  acted  through,  or  over  head  of, 
68;  power  of  licensing  ill  defined,  68; 
court  on  jurisdiction  of,  69;  case  of 
Herbert  at  Maidstone,  71-72;  censor- 
ship and  licensing  plays  most  important 
function  of,  53,  73,  76,  82;  had  right  to 
suppress  a  play,  77;  methods  of  censoring, 
77-78;  fee  of,  for  licensing  a  play,  79; 
new  source  of  revenue  for,  in  licensing  the 
printing  of  plays,  64,  84;  licensed  books 
of  poetry,  85;  arguments  for  power  of, 
over  licensing  for  the  press,  86-87;  busi- 
ness of,  extensive  and  profitable,  87; 
income,  88;  expurgations  of,  in  surviving 
MSS.,  89;  character  of  men  chosen  for 
office  of,  89;  concern  of,  not  a  moral,  but  a 
practical  political  one,  89;  "reformations  " 
of  Sir  Thomas  Mure,  94-95;  case  of 
William  Beeston's  Company's  defiance 
of  the,  131-32;  rise  of  the,  177;  licensing 
power  of,  established  by  IS92,  179;  reg- 
ulated performances,  197;  Prynne's 
attack  on  the,  221;  all  licenses  of,  abol- 
ished, 226.  See  also  Buc,  Sir  G.;  Revels 
Office;  Tilney,  E. 

Master  of  the  Revels'  Servants  at  Leicester, 
70 

Master  of  the  Rolls  a  Justice  of  the  Peace 
in  Middlesex,  54;  orders  sent  to,  by 
Privy  Council,  145,  17s 

Muster  of  St.   Catherine's,  146 

Masterless  vagabonds,  1;  society  had  no 
hold  on  the,  22;  subject  to  severe  pen- 
alties, 24 

Masters  of  the  Chapel  Children  authorized  to 
take  up  singing  boys,  32,  48,  51 

Maurice  of  Orange,  caused  execution  of  John 
of  Barnevelt  for  treason,  114 

May-game,  A  seditious,  6 

Mayors  of  towns  expected  to  supervise  li- 
censing, 13;  to  determine  standing  of 
wandering  players,  27 


252 


Merchant  Taylors'  Company,  Court  of  the, 

refused    an   annuity    to   Tilney    to   stop 

licensing  plays,  56 
Metropolitan    district,    Divided    jurisdiction 

over  the,  145-46 
Middlesex  and  Surrey,  Justices  of  the  Peace 

of,  18;    orders  of  Privy  Council  sent  to, 

58,   145,    175,   210;     to  stop   plays,    184; 

censured  by  the  Lords  for  not  enforcing 

orders,  103-04 
Middleton,     Edward,     brought     before     the 

Council,  121 
Middleton,    Thomas,    author    of    Game    at 

Chess,   "shifted   out   of    the   way,"    120; 

devised  a  Lord  Mayor's  show,  217;   chro- 

nologer  of  London,  217 
Midsummer  Night,   1592,  Precautions  taken 

against     disorders     feared     on,     145-46, 

170-82 
Militia  ordered  to  suppress  all  plays,  225 
Minstrels  the  predecessors  of  the  professional 

actors,  22 
Monasteries,    dissolved,    Liberties    precincts 

of,  144 
Money  bond  required  of  players  as  surety, 

S8-59 
Monopolies,    Economic    system    of,    applied 

to  the  stage,  1 
Monopoly,    Patents   of,   granted    to    favored 

persons,  39,  197 
Monster    Lately    Found    Out,    by    Rawlidge, 

163,  217 
Monteagle,  Lord,  in  the  Essex  conspiracy,  98 
Moralities  common  in  1485,  4 
Morality,   A   sort   of    Roman   Catholic   con- 
troversial, performed  at  Sir  John  York's 

house,  113 
Morality,  Puritan  care  for,  in  London,  16 
More,  Sir  Thomas,  as  represented  in  the  play, 

93-05 
MS.  Herbert,  66  n 
Munday,  Anthony,  devised  a  Lord  Mayor's 

show,  217 
Municipal  officers  in  towns,  Supervision  by,  14 
Municipality,  see  London 
Murray,  Sir  James,  delated  Ben  Jonson  to 

the   King   for   writing   against   the   Scots, 

102,  103 
Mysteries  and  moralities  common,  4;  cycles  of, 

presented  by  trades  guilds,  22;   lawful,  24 

Nash,  Thomas,  Imprisonment  of,  for  his 
Isle  of  Dogs,  97-98;  complains  that 
players  are  persecuted,  184 

New  Romney,  Visits  of  players  to,  23 

Newcastle,  Players  at,  arrested  and  whipped, 
228 

Newington  precinct  under  Justices  of  Surrey, 

145 

Newington  Theater,   the,   Location  of,    143; 

Lords    prohibited    plays    at,    17s;     plays 

ordered  at,  182 
Nicolini,  Francis,  and  his  company,  Warrant 

to,  70 
Noblemen,    kept    companies    of    players,    4, 


22-23,  26;  players  of,  licensed,  10;  power 
of  licensing  taken  from,  28,  35,  38;  com- 
panies of,  transferred  to  members  of  the 
royal  family,  36,  38;  licenses  of,  recog- 
nized by  local  officials  in  spite  of  law, 
40-41;  not  to  be  attacked  in  plays,  90, 
97;   satire  on,  censored,  III,  124 

North,  Lord  President  of  the,  ordered  by 
Privy  Council  to  suppress  players  and 
plays,  11-12,  25;  letter  to,  from  Sir 
Robert  Dudley,  asking  license  for  his 
players,  15,  26 

Northampton's,  Marquis  of,  company  at 
Leicester,  27 

Northbrooke's  Treatise,  159,  219 

Northumberland's,  Earl  of,  company  of 
players,  22;    appear  at  Leicester,  27 

Nottingham,  Earl  of.  Lord  Admiral,  urged 
that  Edward  Alleyn  be  allowed  to  finish 
his  theater,  190 

Oaths,    Effort   of   censor   to   excise   all,   90; 

care    in    expunging,     111-12,    118;     an 

offense    to    Herbert,    124;     censoring    of, 

128-29;    condemnation  of,  satirized,   133 
Official  buildings,  Players'  rights  to  perform 

in,  bought  off,  40 
Oldcastle,  Sir  John,  Shakspere's  use  of  the 

name  in  Henry  IV,  96,  188 
Orange,    Prince    of,    as    presented    in    Bar- 

neveli,  115,  116 
Order  of  expulsion  of  players,  163-64,  220; 

probable  date  of,  164,  172-73 
Ordinance  of  suppression  rigorously  enforced, 

226-28 
Ordinary  of  the  Diocese,  the  bishop  sitting 

in  ecclesiastical  court,  8;  given  power  of 

licensing  plays,  12,  13 
Oxford,  Scholars  of,  that  go  a-begging,  30 
Oxford's,   Earl  of,  company  of   players,  22; 

allowed  to  play  at  the  Boar's  Head,  194 

Painter,  William,  Reversionary  grant  of 
Master's  office  to,  65  n 

Pammachius,  anti-papal  tragedy,  performed 
at  Christ's  College,  Cambridge,  6 

Papacy,  Dramas  in  support  of  the,  6 

Papists  performing  interludes  inciting  to 
breach  of  the  peace  to  be  imprisoned, 
7;    James  I  on  the  conversion  of,  20 

Pappe  with  a  Hatehett  by  Lyly,  01 

Paradoxes  by  J.  Donne,  Licensing  of,  for 
printing,  brought  Herbert  to  the  Star 
Chamber,  85 

Paris  Garden,  Bear-baitings  and  bull-baitings 
in,  46;  Manor  or  Liberty  of,  143;  The 
Swan  in,  143;  under  Justices  of  Surrey, 
145;   disaster  at,  163,  165-66,  175,  210 

Parish  organizations  in  Blackfriars  and  White- 
friars,  145 

Parish  plays,  22 

Parker's,  Sir  Henry,  company  of  players,  at 
Leicester,  26 

Parliament,  Act  of  Uniformity  1540  (2  and 
3  Edward  VI),  9;  1559  (1  Elizabeth,  cap. 


253 


a),  13;  Act  against  profane  use  of  holy 
names  in  plays,  10;  lirst  statute  of  first, 
of  Charles  I,  on  abuses  on  Sunday,  20; 
Puritan  clement  in,  demanded  restriction 
of  players,  36,  222;  performances  in  spite 
of,  224-25 

Parliament,    the    Long,    Edict     of,     against 
Stage-plays,     222-23;       new     orders     of, 
2:4;    adopts  extreme  measures,  225-27 
oa  the  Jesuit,  Pamphlet  by,  92 

Patents,  Licensing  or  dispensing,  granted  by 
the  Crown  as  favors,  or  sold,  45;  for 
playing-places,  153-54,  206 

Patents,  royal,  History  of,  33-30;  system  of, 
developed,  36;  second,  sometimes  granted, 
38;  result  of  system  of,  38-39;  other 
forms  of  license  than,  granted,  39;  supe- 
rior even  to  the  Statutes,  45,  148,  155; 
provisos  in,  63-64;  Prynne  declares  un- 
constitutional, 221;  abolished  by  Parlia- 
ment, 226;   tabulated,  231-34 

Patient  Grissel.  Payment  to  printer  to  stay 
printing  of,  80 

Paul's  Boys,  Play  by,  on  the  captivity  of  the 
Pope,  6;  suppression  of  the,  92;  acted 
undisturbed,  195.  See  also  Children  of 
Paul's 

Pedlars  and  petty  chapmen,  Patent  for  licens- 
ing, under  James  1,  46 

Pembroke,  Earl  of.  Lord  Chamberlain,  39  n; 
action  of,  on  Game  at  Chess,  121;  catered 
to  by  Massinger,  123-24 

Pembroke  and  Montgomery,  Earl  of,  Lord 
Chamberlain,  39,  85;  dispute  with  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  214 

Pembroke's,  Earl  of,  servants,  39 

Penalties,  Severity  of,  supposed  necessary  by 
a  brutal  age,  29 

Percy,  Sir  Charles,  in  the  Essex  conspiracy,  98 

Percy,  Sir  Jocelyn,  in  the  Essex  consipracy,  98 

Performances,  Sacrilegious  and  libellous, 
severely  punished,  108;  unchaste  and 
seditious,  not  tolerated,  158;  continued 
in  the  Liberties  and  in  inn-yards,  175; 
order  limiting  number  of,  192;  regulated 
by  Master  of  the  Revels,  197;  City 
forced  to  tolerate  dangerous,  198;  in  spite 
of  Parliament,  224,  225 

Pericles,  Profit  on  performance  of,  given  to 
Herbert,  76 

Perkvn,  John,  in  Earl  of  Leicester's  com- 
pany, 33 

Personalities,  offensive,  Effort  to  suppress,  134 

Persons  of  high  rank  not  to  be  attacked  in 
plays,  60,  90,  97 

Philaster,  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  Her- 
bert's fussy  alterations  in,  128-29 

Philip  and  Mary,  Marriage  of,  10 

Phillippes,  Augustine,  in  the  King's  Men, 
36;  on  the  performance  of  Richard  II 
for  the  Essex  conspirators,  98-99 

Pit,  Rabble  frequenters  of  the,  3 

Plague,  Regulations  for  playing  in  time  of, 
34.  37.  38,  211-14;  plays  forbidden  on 
account   of   the,    58,   68,    150,    152,    155; 


favors  shown  players  in  time  of,  76,  214; 
increase  of  the,  156,  160,  161;  stops  per- 
formances, 162,  167,  168,  175;  answer  to 
rules  proposed  by  Queen's  players  for 
plague,  time,  173,  174,  211-12;  severe, 
181,  182,  184 

Players  and  playhouses,  Standing  of,  in  the 
eyes  of  the  law,  1,  3 

Players,  Favored  companies  of,  granted 
royal  patents,  1,  35;  a  company  of, 
suppressed  in  the  North,  n,  25;  letter 
on  behalf  of  the  Earl  of  Leicester's,  15; 
various  sorts  of  companies  of,  22,  23; 
professional,  kept  by  noblemen,  4,  22-23; 
exempt  from  sumptuary  law,  23;  fre- 
quently traveled,  23-24,  26-27;  licensed 
by  the  Crown,  28,  45;  companies  of, 
traveled  under  royal  or  noble  protection, 
31,  32,  36;  less  personal  relation  of,  with 
patron,  31;  sometimes  purchased  name 
and  license,  31  n;  licensed  under  the 
Great  Seal,  33-34,  155;  royal  license 
valuable  to  noblemen's  players,  34; 
secured  many  privileges  in  London 
through  royal  favor,  35,  49,  150,  160; 
monopoly  granted  to  favored,  36,  38-39, 
150;  noblemen's  and  London,  trans- 
ferred to  royal  family,  36,  38;  monopoly 
of  patents  to,  not  absolute,  39;  rights 
of,  to  perform  bought  off,  40,  41,  70,  72; 
licensed  by  Master  of  the  Revels,  45; 
rehearsed  before  him,  49;  company  of, 
suppressed,  58,  189;  enjoying  royal 
patents  obliged  to  obey  the  Master,  59, 
61,  63-64;  not  to  perform  without  license, 
65,  158;  annual  licenses  to  traveling,  70; 
all,  must  have  license  from  the  Master, 
73;  none  severely  punished,  92 ;  in  trouble 
because  of  their  impertinence,  108;  cen- 
tralization of  power  over,  148-49;  chief 
reason  for  admission  of,  into  London, 
149-50;  a  nobleman's  company  com- 
mitted, 151;  attitude  of  London  Cor- 
poration toward  traveling,  152;  opposi- 
tion to,  in  the  City  high,  153;  must  be 
authorized  by  Mayor  and  Aldermen,  158; 
driven  to  the  Liberties,  158;  expelled 
and  playhouses  pulled  down,  163; 
favored  by  Privy  Council,  160,  162-63, 
164;  letter  to  suppress  all,  169;  excluded 
from  London,  170;  powerful  influence 
at  command  of,  188;  only  two  companies 
of,  allowed,  191-92;  sheltered  by  royal 
protection,  197;  taxation  of,  for  benefit 
of  sick  and  poor,  206-7;  mentioned  as 
rogues  and  vagabonds  in  the  statutes, 
221;  legal  status  of  worthy,  222;  edict  of 
Long  Parliament  against,  222-23;  to 
be  arrested  and  punished,  224-25;  status 
of  vagabond  imposed  on  all,  226;  act  in 
defiance  of  the  law,  224,  225,  227;  peti- 
tion Parliament,  227-28.  See  also 
Actors,   Licensing  of   players 

Players,    Strolling,  arrested,    12;     unlicensed, 
called    rogues    and    vagabonds,    21,    29; 


254 


needed  a  license  for  protection,  23,  27; 
liable  to  penalties  as  "  masterless  men," 
24,  25-26;  standing  of,  left  to  local 
authorities,  27;  two  forms  of  license  for, 
27;  penalties  for  "  wandering  abroad," 
28-29,  221-22;  not  vagabonds  in  eyes  of 
the  law,  30-31;  situation  of,  radically 
altered  under  Puritan  domination,  31; 
licensed  by  the  Master,  45 

Players'  pass,  A,  issued  to  members  of  King's 
Company,  30,  69 

Playhouses,  Licensing  of,  73;  must  be 
approved  by  Mayor  and  Aldermen,  158, 
207;  order  of  the  Council  to  reduce  the 
number  of  the,  191-92;  frequented  by  a 
better  class,  216;  to  be  disabled,  225, 
226.     See  also  Theaters 

Playing-cards,  Monopoly  in,  39 

Playing  places,  Fixed,  35;  authorized,  38J 
national  regulation  of,  42-43;  authorized, 
specified  in  patents,  197.  See  also 
Theaters 

Plays,  Regulation  of,  by  municipal  and 
shire  authorities,  2;  licensing  of,  4-21; 
content  of,  censored,  4-5,  158;  reported 
edict  of  1533  against,  not  authentic,  5; 
used  by  opponents  of  the  royal  policy, 
6;  first  legislation  concerning  content  of, 
7;  use  of,  for  proper  ends  approved, 
7-8;  English,  prohibited  for  three  months, 
8-9;  royal  proclamation  against,  9; 
censoring  of,  9-10;  a  source  of  sedition, 
10;  troubles  with,  frequent,  11;  ordered 
*s"nppressed  through  Justices  of  the  Peace, 
11-12;  forbidden  in  summer  of  i557i  12; 
prohibited  for  a  season  by  Elizabeth,  14; 
rigorous  steps  to  suppress  offensive,  18, 
91-92,  176-77;  commission  on,  18,  91 ; 
unfit  matter  in,  suppressed,  19,  91;  pro- 
hibition of, on  the  Sabbath, 20-2 1,  158, 164; 
all,  prohibited  by  Puritans,  21,  152,  164; 
given  by  actors  in  good  standing,  22; 
examined  by  Master  of  the  Revels,  49; 
six  selected  for  giving  at  Court,  49;  for- 
bidden in  London,  58,  68,  91,  108;  all, 
must  be  licensed  by  the  Master,  73;  copies 
of,  left  with  the  Master,  78;  fee  for  li- 
censing, 79.  81;  licenses  given  to  act,  not 
to  print,  79-80;  objection  of  players  to 
publication  of,  79-80;  revival  of  old,  re- 
quired Master's  approval,  81,  82,  118,  124; 
greater  care  in  supervision  of  old,  82,  124; 
stealing,  prevented  by  the  Master,  82-83, 
urgent  reason  for  not  printing,  83;  in- 
herited from  Queen's  Company  confirmed 
to  William  Beeston's  Company,  83;  print- 
ing, without  consent  of  companies  owning, 
caused  trouble,  85;  many  uncensored 
before  Herbert's  time,  134;  arguments 
against,  156-57;  lawful,  honest  and  comely 
use  of,  allowed,  157;  provision  for  licens- 
ing, 157-58;  forbidden  at  the  universities, 
178-79;  public  demand  for,  195;  all 
stopped  five  days  before  death  of  Eliza- 
beth, 196;    edict  of  the  Long  Parliament 


against,     222-23;      new    orders    against, 
224,  225-27 

Playwrights,  Prominent,  devised  the  Lord 
Mayor's  shows,  217 

Poetaster,  Jonson  in  trouble  because  of  the, 
102-3 

Political  and  historical  dramas.  Attitude  of 
the  censor,  Buc,  towards,  11 5-16  y 

Political    and    religious    questions    in    plays") 
fairly  suppressed,  133-34  -J 

Political  liberty,  Eulogy  of,  in  Barnevelt,  117 

Political  or  personal  allusions  caused  trouble 
to  two  distinguished  poets,  105 

Political  unrest  reflected  in  the  drama,  97-9^ 

Politics,  Factional  not  general,  touched  on 
in  the  drama,  135 

Poor,  Contributions  for  the,  158,  183,  190, 
206-7;   admission  fees  forfeited  to  the,  226 

Poor  Laws,  The  memorable,  of  Elizabeth, 
1,  24,  27;  subsequent,  altered  licensing 
system,  28 

Pope,  English  comedies  in  contempt  of  the, 
reported  by  the  Venetian  Ambassador,  8 

Porter,  Endymion,  appeals  to  the  King 
against  Herbert's  censoring  of  D'Ave- 
nant's  Wits,  127 

Press,  licensing  for  the,  Revels  Office  makes 
efforts  to  continue,  86;  arguments  show- 
ing jurisdiction  claimed,  86-87 

Priests  railed  on  in  an  interlude,  7 

Prince's  Company,  The,  37;  patent  of  1606 
granted  to,  63,  232;  authorized  to  play  in 
Rosseter's  theater,  199,  233;  acted  Amends 
for  Ladies  in,  201;  sought  license  for 
playhouse  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  204 

Printing,  Edict  concerning  licensing  of,  9; 
a  method  of  arousing  revolt,  10;  Master 
assumes  licensing  of,  84;  Lord  Chamber- 
lain exercises  authority  over,  85 

Private  theater,  Burbage's,  186 

Privy  Council,  given  censorship  of  printing 
and  of  plays,  9-10;  vigilant,  n;  orders 
of,  against  players  and  pipers,  12;  gave 
the  Ordinary  the  power  of  licensing  plays, 
12;  reserved  supreme  authority,  13,  15, 
19;  on  plays  in  London,  17,  52,  150; 
devised  a  commission  of  Church,  City 
and  Crown,  18,  55,  91;  orders  of,  to 
Lord  Shrewsbury,  25;  grants  open  war~ 
rants  to  Earl  of  Sussex's  players  and  to 
Lord  Strange's  company,  34;  secured 
privileges  for  favored  players,  35,  153, 
159,  160;  ordered  London  Council  in 
play  matters,  42 ;  suspended  performances 
in  London,  54,  55,  58,  91,  150,  189,  210; 
did  not  recognize  the  Master,  58,  60; 
transmitted  orders  through  the  Master, 
67,  68;  play  concerning  the  Marquess 
d'Ancre  stopped  by,  68,  113;  perform- 
ances in  Lent  prohibited  by,  75,  150,  160; 
charges  of,  against  T.  Nash,  07;  stopped 
performances  at  The  Rose,  98;  co:n- 
plaint  of,  against  players  at  The  Curtain, 
100;  report  of  action  taken  on  Game  J/ 
Chess,  120;   stopped  a  play  on  the  torture 


255 


of  the  English  at  Ambovna,  122;  order 
of,  against  players  of  The  Red  Hull  for 
libel,  130-31;  orders  issued  by,  regarding 
disorders  in  the  Liberties,  145-46,170-8:; 
friendly  to  the  drama,  140;  various 
reasons  of,  for  suppressing  plays,  150; 
city  authorities  agreed  with  the,  150;  some- 
times strongly  opposed  to  plays,  151; 
refused  to  attend  Lord  Mayor's  feast  on 
account  of  the  plague,  156;  ordered 
resumption  of  performances,  160,  162-63, 
164;  forbade  performances  on  account  of 
plague,  157,  101,  162,  175;  power  of, 
to  get  players  admitted  to  the  City,  167; 
order  of,  for  reverence  of  God  and  en- 
couragement of  Queen's  bearbaiters, 
177;  acquired  the  Puritan  attitude,  178; 
order  sent  to  the  Middlesex  Justices, 
180-81;  for  reopening  of  The  Rose, 
1S1-82;  on  Blackfriars  Theater,  186; 
prohibit  plays  and  order  theaters  de- 
molished, 187;  order  of,  reducing  number 
of  theaters  and  of  performances,  18,  60, 
igo-02;  not  enforced,  192;  censure 
Mayor  and  Justices,  162,  193-94;  lax- 
ness  of,  in  enforcing  orders,  194-95 

Proctors  of  the  Court  of  Probate  defamed  by 
players  at  The  Red  Bull,  130-31 

Profanity,  see  Oaths 

Protestant  cause,  Stage  a  weapon  in  the,  6,  10 

Protestant  dramas  written  by  those  high  in 
authority,  8 

Protestantism,  Henry's  reaction  against,  7; 
extreme,  approved  by  Edward  VI,  8; 
moderate,  in  ascendant  under  Elizabeth, 
13 

Provost  Marshal  for  London  and  adjoining 
counties,  178,  189;  commission  of, 
revoked,  183;  Captain  Bethan  appointed, 
227 

Prynne,  William,  Hislriomastix,  76,  219, 
220;  mutilation  and  suffering  of,  in  the 
pillory,  134;  complaint  of,  against 
Sunday  plays,  210;  on  players  as  rogues 
and  vagabonds,  221;  not  all  Puritans  as 
rigorous  as,  222;  view  of,  became  law, 
226 

Public  prayers,  Coaches  disturb,  202,  209 

Puncteus,  John,  and  his  company,  Warrant 
to,  70 

Puritan,  a  broad  term,  215;  political  party 
called,  216;  ideas  spread  among  the 
populace,  217;  attack  on  the  drama, 
159-60,  197-98,  218-20;  general  line  of 
argument,  219;  summary  in  title-page  of 
Prynne's  lli^tri.>-\lastix,  220;  movement 
appreciated  by  the  modern  mind,  229 

Puritan  prohibition  relaxed,  71,  194-95; 
more  stringent,  158;  extreme,  became 
law,  226 

Puritan  victory,  Chapter  on  the,  215-30 

Puritanism  and  the  royal  government, 
Conflict  between,  2;  development  of, 
215;  London  a  great  center  of,  216; 
reaction  against,  230 


Puritans  inflamed  with  hatred  of  the  Court 
2;  final  victory  of  the,  2,  3;  have  majority 
in  Parliament,  [9;  situation  altered 
under,  31;  desired  to  abolish  all  players, 
36,  22i;  punishment  of  offending,  134; 
the  stage  anathema  to  the,  135;  result  of 
struggle  of  City  with  Privy  Council 
unsatisfactory  to  the,  175;  opponents  of 
the  court  party,  215;  attitude  of,  towards 
statutes  regulating  players,  220-21;  laws 
passed  by,  really  suppressed  plays,  223; 
had  the  better  part,  230 

Queen's  Company,  The,  patented  1603,  37, 
231-32;  receives  a  second  patent  in 
1609,  63,  232;  another  company  of  the 
same  name  at  The  Cockpit,  83;  in  trouble 
in  1637,  129;  plays  Brome's  English 
Moor,  129 

Queen's  Majesty's  Players,  The,  appear  in 
Leicester,  27,  32;  a  new  company  organ- 
ized in  1583,  32,  166-169;  accused  of 
abuse  of  special  privileges,  41,  174; 
petition  of,  for  leave  to  play,  170;  reply 
of  the  City  to,  171-74;  rogues,  but  for 
Her  Majesty's  favor,  173,  221;  proposal 
of,  for  plague  rule,  173,  211 

Queen's  Men,  see  Queen's  Majesty's 
Players 

Queen's  Servants,  see  Queen's  Majesty's 
Players 

Rainolde's  Overthrow  of  Stage-Playes,  219 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  granted  a  patent  for 
licensing  taverns  and  wine-selling,  45; 
fate  of,  called  up,  by  seeing  Bamevelt,  115 

Rankins'  Mirrour  of  Monsters,  219 

Ratcliffe,  Precinct  of,  Lord  Wentworth  in 
charge  of,  146 

Rawlidge's  Monster  Lately  Found  Out,  163, 
217,  219 

Recreations,  Lawful  Sabbath,  20 

Red  Bull,  Come  See  a  Wonder  acted  at  the, 
77;  players  at,  arraigned  for  libeling 
aldermen  and  proctors,  129-30;  appren- 
tices plan  to  pull  down  the,  218;  Wit 
Without  Money  acted  at,  225;  players  at, 
through  bribing  officer,  227;  authorized 
theater  of  the  Queen's  Company,  232 

Red  Bull  company  forbidden  to  play  Shak- 
spere's  plays,  83;  arrested  several  times, 
228 

Reformation,  Controversies  following  the, 
illustrated,  1;  spirit  of  revolt  aroused  by 
the,  5 

Refutation  of  Heywood's  Apology  for  Actors, 
219 

Regulation  of  plays.  National,  4-43;  by 
local  civil  and  ecclesiastical  authorities, 
4-5;  irksome  in  London,  158;  rigid 
enforcement  of,  159;    history  of,  198 

Regulations,  Maze  of  conflicting,  3;  numerous 
possibilities  of  evasion  of,  41;  non-en- 
forcement of,  194,  195 

Religion,  Questions  of,  not  allowed  in  plays, 


256 


15,  go,  92;    the  censor's  care  for,   no, 

130 

Religious  controversy,  Offensive  representa- 
tion of,  92 

Remedies  for  Articles  proposed  by  Queen's 
players,   173,   174,  212 

Respublica,  anti-I'rotcstant  morality,  repre- 
sented at  Court  of  Mary,  10 

Restrictions,  Laxness  in  enforcing,  194-95 

Revels  Office,  Reports  from  officials  of,  on 
its  reorganization,  48;  germ  of  censorship 
developed  in,  49;  in  an  unsettled  state, 
47,  49;  reorganization  of  the,  50;  powers 
of,  51;  the  workmen  of  the,  51;  authority 
of,  outside  the  Court,  61;  extension  of 
the  powers  of  the,  62,  63;  under  Buc,  64; 
"Declaration  of  the  Ancient  Powers  of 
the  Office,"  65;  organization  of,  67;  ad- 
ministration of,  lax  under  Buc,  85; 
efforts  of,  to  continue  licensing  for  the 
press,  86;  Bill  for  licensing  the  stage  left 
no  authority  to,  88.  See  also  Buc,  Sir  G.; 
Master  of  the  Revels;   Tilney,  E. 

Rich,  Lord,  ordered  by  Privy  Council  to 
investigate  a  play,  n 

Richard,  Duke  of  Gloucester,  see  Richard  III 

Richard  11,  Performance  of,  arranged  by  the 
Essex  consiprators,  98-99 

Richard  III,  Company  of  players  of,  22 

Rights  under  patents,  Buying  off  the  exer- 
cise of,  57 

Rogues,  Definition  of,  14  Elizabeth,  cap.  5, 
29-30;  branded  with  an  R,  29;  Queen's 
Players  rogues  but  for  Her  Majesty's 
favor,  173,  221;  large  numbers  of,  1, 
178;  all  stage-players  to  be  considered, 
226 

Roman-Catholic  religion,  Players  allowed 
greater  freedom  for  attacks  on  the,  92; 
reference  to,  censored,  no 

Roo's,  John,  morality  of  Lord  Governaunce 
and  Lady  Publike-Wele,  5 

Rope-dancing  licensed  by  Herbert,  70,  72; 
at  The  Fortune,  75 

Rose  theater,  The,  outside  the  city  limits, 
licensed  by  Tilney,  57;  Lord  Strange's 
Company  at,  79;  Nash's  Isle  of  Dogs  at, 
97;  performances  at,  stopped,  98;  in 
the  Liberty  of  the  Clink,  143;  petitions 
to  reopen,  181-82;  new  house  in  place  of, 
190 

Rosseter,  Philip,  Patent  under  Great  Seal 
issued  to,  to  build  a  playhouse  in  Black- 
friars,  198-99,  232;  Chief  Justice  Coke 
decides  against,  199;  builds  and  uses 
theater,  200-1 

Royal  power.  Gradual  extension  of,  2 

Royalty,  Passages  reflecting  on,  censored, 
109-10 

Sabbath,  Puritan  objection  to  sports  on  the, 
20;  orders  of  James  I  and  Charles  I 
regarding,  20;  libellous  performance  on 
the,  severely  punished,  108;  no  plays  al- 
lowed on,  163,  164,  175,  192,  209;    Lords 


more  zealous  for  the,  than  the  Lord  Mayor, 

177 
Sacke/ull  of  N ewes,  Performance  of,  at  Boar's 

Head  prevented,  12 
St.  Catherine's  precinct,  146,  212 
St.    Giles   in    the    Fields    under    Justices   of 

Middlesex,   145,   180;    to  be  included  in 

bills  of  mortality,  212 
St.    Martin's,   Precinct   of,    Bailiff   of   West- 
minster to  preserve  order  in  the,  146 
St.    Saviour's   parish,   Players    to   contribute 

for  poor  of,  60,  189,  207;   location  of,  143; 

appealed    to   Council   for   suppression   of 

playhouses,  189 
St.  Thomas  the  Apostle,  Seditions  rising  at 

performance  of  religious   interlude   of,   7 
Salisbury,  An  ex-priest  burned  at,  7 
Sanctuary,  Privileges  of,  in  Blackfriars  and 

Whitefriars,  147;    all  rights  of,  abolished, 

147 

Sappho  and  Pluio,  Veiled  symbolism  dis- 
covered in,  91 

Savoy,  Liberty  of,  a  pretended  privileged 
place  west  of  the  City,  148 

Schelling.  F.  E.,  on  the  Jonson  and  Chapman 
letters,  104 

Sclwole  of  Abuse,  by  Gosson,  159,  209 

Scotch,  Satirical  reference  to  the,  in  East- 
ward Hoe,  caused  Jonson's  imprison- 
ment, 101-2 

Scripture,  Interpretation  of,  not  to  be  meddled 
with  in  plays  or  interludes,  8 

Seamans  Honest  Wife  censored  by  H.  Her- 
bert, 78,  124 

Second  and  Third  Blast  of  Retrait,  219 

Second  Mayden's  Tragedy,  The,  censored  by 
G.  Buc,  78;  Buc's  expurgations  from, 
109-12,  134;    plot  of,  109,  115 

Sedition,  Letter  of  Henry  VIII  on,  6-7;  Act 
against,  7;  danger  of,  8,  13;  edict  against, 
9,  io-ii,  152;  censoring  concerned  with 
suppressing,  13;  censoring  for,  in  Lon- 
don, 16;  sound  speeches  against,  in  Sir 
Thomas  More,  03;  government  guarding 
against,   95;     fear   of   condemnation   for, 

133 

Sejanus,  Jonson  in  trouble  because  of,  103, 
104 

Self-government,  Overriding  the  rights  of 
local,  2, 198 

Servants  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  35 

Seyle,  Henry,  Herbert  received  money  from, 
for  allowing  books  of  verses  by  Lord 
Brooks  and  Cowley,  85 

Shakspere,  William,  high  in  prosperity  and 
royal  favor,  31,  99;  royal  patent  to,  36- 
37;  plays  of,  forbidden  to  the  Red  Bull 
company,  83;  asserted  to  have  written 
a  set  of  alterations  and  additions  to  Sir 
Thomas  More,  93;  Sir  John  Oldcastle 
falsely  attributed  to,  96;  not  restrained 
by  the  censorship,  135;  not  concerned 
with  controversial  purpose,  136;  years 
during  which  he  was  rising  to  preeminence, 
178 


257 


Slukspere's  audience,  Endeavor  fo  secure 
some  light  on,  i,  3 

Slukspere's  Com  puny,  33,  06;  patent  issued 
to,  as  the  King's  Men,  36-37;  play 
Richard  II  for  the  Essex  conspirators, 
08-00 

Shakspere'a  Henry  IV,  06 

Shakspere'a  Richard  II,  0S-00 

Sheriffs,  of  London,  stopped  play  by  appren- 
tices at  the  Whitcfriars,  112;  elected 
by  the  Common  Council,  138;  afraid  to 
enforce  writs  in  Whitcfriars,  14S;  ordered 
to  suppress  all  plays,  225;  to  demolish 
play-houses,  226 

Shirley,  Sir  Thomas,  to  preserve  order  in 
Whitcfriars,  146 

Shirley's,  James,  Young  Admiral,  warmly 
approved  by  Herbert,  127 

Shoreditch,  Precinct  of,  Lord  Wentworth  to 
preserve  order  in,  146,  212 

Short  Treatise  Against  Stage  Plays,  219, 
222 

Showmen,  All  sorts  of,  licensed  by  the  Master, 
72 

Shrewsbury,  Earl  of,  Lord  President  of  the 
North,  ordered  to  suppress  a  company 
of  players,  11,  25;  Earl  of  Leicester  to, 
on  behalf  of  his  players,  is 

Shrewsbury's,  Earl  of,  company  of  players,  23 

Siege  of  Rhodes,  The,  by  D'Avenant,  pro- 
duced at  Rutland  House,  229 

Singleton's,  Hugh,  Orders  appointed  to  be 
executed,   163 

Sir  Giles  Goosecap  named  as  cause  of  Jonson 
and  Chapman's  troubles,  104 

Sir  John  Oldcastle  falsely  attributed  to  Shak- 
spere,  96 

Sir  John  Van  Olden  Barnexelt,  see  Barnevelt 

Sir  Thomas  More  the  earliest  manuscript 
showing  Tilney's  "reformations"  for 
public  performance,  55;  description  of, 
03-05 

Slander,  Fear  of  condemnation  for,  133 

Sly,  William,  in  the  King's  Men,  36 

Southampton,  Earl  of,  a  daily  frequenter  of 
the  playhouses,  3 

Southwark,  Borough  of,  140,  141-42; 
grants  of  Edward  III  and  IV,  141;  never 
a  part  of  London  City,  142;  theaters 
outside  the,  142;  complaint  of  inhabitants 
of,  to  Privy  Council,  175;  serious  tumult 
in,  170-80;  playhouses  in,  ordered  de- 
molished, 188;  to  be  included  in  bills  of 
mortality,  212 

Southwark  players,  Complaint  of  Bishop  of 
Winchester  against  the,  8 

Spain,  King  of,  scoffed  at  on  the  stage,  92; 
public  feeling  against,  118-20 

Spanish  Tragedy,  The,  belonging  to  the  Lord 
Chamberlain's  Company,  appropriated  by 
the  Chapel  Children,  83 

Spanishe  Viceroy,  The,  acted  by  King's  Com- 
pany  without   Herbert's  license,   77,    122 

Spencer,  an  ex-priest,  turned  interlude- player, 
burned  at  Salisbury,  7 


Sporfs  on  the  Sabbath,  Proclamation  of  James 
I  forbidding,  20;  those  allowed  in  Book 
of  Sports,  20 

Stage,  Light  on  the  history  of  the,  2;  bitter 
attacks  on,  in  Elizabethan  era,  3;  a 
dangerous  weapon  in  religious  disputes,  5 

Stage-Players  Complaint,  222 

Star  Chamber,  Herbert  summoned  before 
the,  85;  report  of  trial  of  Sir  Edward 
Dymock  and  others,  108 

Stationers'  Company,  Master  and  Wardens 
of  the,  gave  license  for  printing,  84; 
ordered  not  to  allow  printing  of  plays 
belonging  to  companies  without  their 
consent,  85 

Stationers'  Register,  Dramas  entered  in, 
authorized  by  Revels  Office,  64;  licensing 
for  printing  entered  in,  70;  Buc  appears 
as  licenser  in  the,  84;  Herbert  licensed 
plays  entered  in,  85 

Statute  1  James  I  (1604),  cap.  7,  limited 
licensing  power  to  the  Crown,  28,  3s,  4s; 
branded  vagabonds,  29;  passed,  38; 
obeyed  in  London,  40;  on  wandering 
players,  221,  222 

Statute  8  and  9  William  III,  cap.  27  (1697), 
148 

Statute  14  Elizabeth,  cap.  5  (1572),  27,  28, 
221;  preamble  of,  sets  forth  grave  social 
trouble,  29;  made  little  change  in  con- 
ditions, 31 

Statute  21  James  I,  cap.  28  (1623-1624), 
abolished  all  rights  of  sanctuary,  147 

Statute  34  and  35  Henry  VIII  the  first  to 
suggest  censorship,  7,  24 

Statute  35  Elizabeth,  cap.  7,  28 

Statute  39  Elizabeth  (1597-98),  cap.  4,  28, 
29,  71,  221 

Statute  of  1606  forbidding  use  of  name  of 
Deity  in  plays  enforced,  90,  128 

Statutes  of  Laborers,  against  vagabonds,  24 

Statutes  of  the  Realm,  superseded  by  royal 
patents,  155 

Strand,  Precinct  of  the.  Bailiff  of  West- 
minster to  preserve  order  in  the,  146 

Strange's,  Lord,  company  granted  an  open 
warrant,  34;  payments  for  licensing  of 
plays  presented  by,  at  The  Rose,  57; 
traveling  license  granted  to,  58,  182,  208; 
payment  to  Master  for,  59;  acting  at 
The  Rose,  79;  two  members  of,  im- 
prisoned, 92,  176-77;  petition  of ,  to  reopen 
The  Rose,  181 

Stuart  despotism,  Development  of,  i_2w 
any  expression  of  revolt  against,  censored,  J 
118  -* 

Stubbes,  John,  punished  with  loss  of  right 
hand,  134 

Stubbes',  Philip,  Anatomic  of  Abuses,  219 

Suffolk,  Games  and  unlawful  assemblies 
prohibited  in,  6 

Suffolk's,  My  Lady  of,  company  of  players,  27 

Sunday,  Agitation  about  performances  on, 
20,  151,  163,  164,  175,  200-10.  See  also 
Sabbath 


UNIVERSITY 

Sal  ■ 


■2r>s 


Sundays  and  Holy  Days,  Plays  chiefly  used 

on,  157,  200 
Supplies,    Passage   on   raising,    censored    by 

King    Charles    from    Massinger's    King 

and  Subject,  120-30 
Sussex's,  Earl  of,   players  granted   an  open 

warrant,  34;    traveling  license  granted  to, 

58,  182 
Swan,  The,  situated  in  the  Liberty  of  Paris 

Garden,  143;    prevention  of  building  of, 

demanded,  183 
Swanston  apologized  to  Herbert,  125;    sided 

with  Parliamentary  party,  223 
Swincrton,  Sir  John,  Supposed  representation 

of,    in    The    Hog    hath    Lost    his   Pearl, 

112 
Syston,  Churchwardens  of,  paid  players  not 

to  play  in  the  church,  42 

Tale  of  a  Tub,  Jonson's,  complained  against 
by  Inigo  Jones  and  censored,  124 

Tamer  Tamed,  The,  revived  by  King's  Com- 
pany, suppressed  by  Herbert,  82.  See 
Woman's  Prize 

Taverns  and  wine-selling,  Sir  Walter  Raleigh 
granted  a  patent  to  license,  45 

Taxation  of  players  for  sick  and  poor,  60, 
189,  206 

Taylor's,  R.,  The  Hog  hath  Lost  his  Pearl 
played  at  The  VVhitefriars,  broken  up  by 
sheriffs,   n  2-13 

Temple,  the,  Question  whether,  is  in  the  Cify 
or  no,  never  decided,  137 

Theater,  The,  in  Liberty  of  Holywell,  143; 
erected  in  1576,  158;  plays  at,  suppressed 
in  Lent,  160;  great  disorders  at,  161,  178; 
Lord  Mayor  to  Privy  Council  against, 
161;  basest  sort  of  people  at,  168;  Lord 
Mayor  requests  pulling  down  of,  169; 
owner  of,  obdurate  before  Recorder 
Fleetwood,  169-70; 
performances  at,  17s; 
haunt,  183;  ordered 
torn  down,  188  n 

Theater  in  VVhitefriars,  Permit  for  erection 
of  a,  sold  by  Buc,  64,  73-74 

Theaters,  of  Shakspere's  day,  2;  permanent, 
established,  35,  36;  various  specified,  38; 
royal  patents  for  erection  of,  43;  order 
for  destruction  of  all,  58,  187-88;  licenses 
for  established,  64,  73;  closed  in  Lent,  68; 
erected  outside  jurisdiction  of  the  Lord 
Mayor  in  neighborhood  of  disorderly 
resorts,  140;  outside  Southwark  in  the 
"Liberties,"  142;  "in  the  fields,"  under 
the  Justices  of  the  Peace,  143;  in  Black- 
friars  and  VVhitefriars  under  the  Lord 
Mayor,  148;  regular,  built  in  the  Liberties, 
153.  158-59;  attacks  on  the,  160,  184, 
187,  218-10;  nests  of  crime.  178;  severe 
orders  against,  170;  dangers  of,  170,  180, 
181-82;  the  fixed,  outside  the  City,  and 
licensed  by  the  Crown,  197 

Thelwall,  Simon,  granted  Revels  Office  jointly 
with  Herbert,  66 


Lords  prohibited 
vagabond  persons 
demolished,    187; 


Third  University  of  England,  The,  treatise  by 
Sir  George  Buc,  63 

Tilney,  Edmund,  Master  of  the  Revels, 
Office  books  of,  lost,  46;  patent  issued 
to,  to  hold  in  successive  reigns,  50;  author 
of  The  Flower  of  Friendship,  50;  special 
commission  granted  to,  51;  empowered  to 
take  workmen  for  the  Office,  51;  opposed 
by  Corporation  of  London,  52;  claiming 
authority  throughout  the  Kingdom,  53; 
commission  of,  to  a  company  of  players, 
53;  not  active  in  London  till  1589,  54; 
member  of  censorship  commission,  55; 
authority  of,  under  Queen's  patent,  56; 
efforts  to  raise  a  "consideration"  for, 
56-57;  received  license  fees  for  plays  from 
Henslowe,  manager  of  The  Rose,  57,  79; 
not  recognized  by  the  Privy  Council, 
58;  succeeded  by  Sir  George  Buc,  62-63; 
licensed  established  theaters,  57,  64,  73; 
censorship  exercised  by,  on  Sir  Thomas 
More,  93;  his  "reformations,"  94-95; 
summoned  by  Walsingham  to  select  Her 
Majesty's  Players,  166.  See  also  Buc; 
Herbert ;    Master  of  the  Revels 

Town  halls,  Use  of,  as  playhouses,  authorized 
in  patents,  43 

Town  officials  could  buy  off  players'  rights 
to  perform,  40 

Town   players,   Number  of,  diminishing,   31 

Tragedies,  romantic,  and  tragi-comedies, 
"Reformation"  administered  to,  by  Buc, 

115 
Tudor   and   Stuart   despotism,   Development 

of  the.  1-2 
Tudor  rulers,  All  the,  had  royal  companies, 

23 
Tudors,  Regulation  of  the  drama  under  the, 

1,  36;   censorship  under  the  early,  90 
Tunstall,    James,    in    Earl    of     Worcester's 

company,  32 
Tyndale's  translation  of  the  Bible  condemned, 

7 

Unchastity  in  plays,  Censoring  of,  in  London, 

16,  156,  158 
Universities,  Plays  forbidden  at  the,  178-79 
Unorthodox  views,  Officials  authorized  to  try 

those  accused  of  spreading,  8 
Unrest,  Economic  and  social,  1 

Vagabonds,  Severe  penalties  imposed  on,  24; 
proclamation  of  Henry  VIII  against,  25; 
statute  against,  26;  severe  penalties 
provided  for,  28-29;  definition  of,  in 
14  Elizabeth,  cap.  5,  20-30 

Venetian  Ambassador  reports  English  com- 
edies in  contempt  of  the  Pope,  8 

Verneuil,  Mademoiselle  de,  satirized  by 
Chapman,  105-6 

Vices  in  high  places,  References  to,  censored 
as  disrespectful  to  the  Sovereign,  109 

Walls,  The  old  city,  140-41 

Walsingham,    Sir    Francis,    organized    Her 


259 


Majesty's    Players,    166;     wrote   to   Lord 

M.ivor  in  behalf  of,  168 
Wanderers    engaged    >n    business,    Act    for 

licensing,  27;   power   to   license,  granted, 

46 
Warrants  of  protection,  51,  69 
Warton,  T.,  Slip  made   by,  in  his  History 

of  English  Poetry,  5 
Warwick.   Servants    of    the    Earl    of,    Privy 

Council   require   a    permit   for   the,    160; 

license  refused  the  Earl  for,  165 
Watermen,  Petition  of,  for  reopening  of  The 

Rose,  181 
Watson's     Hekatompathia,      Commendatory 

verses  prefixed  to,  by  Sir  George  Buc, 

Wayfaring  life,  Vivid  picture  of,  in  14  Eliza- 
beth, cap.  s,  20-30 

Webster,  John,  devised  a  Lord  Mayor's 
show,  217 

Wcntworth,  Lord,  to  preserve  order  in  certain 
precincts,  146 

Westminster,  City  of,  140;  Bailiff  to  pre- 
serve order  in,  146;  to  be  included  in 
bills  of  mortality,  212 

Whitechapel,  Precinct  of,  Lord  Wcntworth  to 
preserve  order  in,  146 

Whitefriars,  Permit  for  erection  of  a  new  the- 
ater in,  sold  by  Buc,  64,  73-74;  Taylor's 
Tlie  Hog  hath  Lost  his  Pearl  performed 
at  the,  1 1 2- 1 3;  authorized  theater  of 
the  Children  of  the  Queen's  Revels,  232 

Whitefriars  precinct  exempt  from  Lord 
Mayor's  jurisdiction,  144;  Sir  Thomas 
Shirley  to  preserve  order  in,  146;  a  no- 
toriously disreputable  district,  claimed  priv- 
ileges of  sanctuary,  147-48;  sheriffs  afraid 
to  enforce  writs  in,  148;  under  municipal 
authority,  197 

Whitgift,  John,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
55-56,  179 

Whore  New  Vamped,  a  libellous  play  against 
aldermen  and  proctors,  130-31 

Williams,  John,  see  Cotton,  John 

Winchester,  Bishop  of,  complains  of  the  South- 


wark  players,  8;  disorderly  houses  under 
the  scignorial  protection  of  the,  143 

Winter's  Tale  revived  by  King's  Players 
without  a  fee,  81 

Wit  Without  Money,  by  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  acted  at  the  Red  Bull,  225 

Wither's  Abuses  Stript  and  Whipt,  219 

Wits  by  D'Avenant  rigorously  censored  by 
Herbert,  127;  revised  by  King  Charles, 
128 

Wolsey  defends  himself  from  attacks  in  a  play, 
5;  comedies  on  release  of  the  Pope  acted 
before,  6 

Woman's  Prize,  or,  The  Tamer  Tamed,  by 
Fletcher,  Trouble  with  the,  82,  124-26; 
Herbert's  letter  to  Mr.  Knight  on,  12s; 
offense  of,  chiefly  profanity,  125;  in- 
decency of,  126 

Women,  Passages  reflecting  on  the  character 
of,  censored,  111 

Worcester's,  Earl  of,  company,  License 
granted  to,  31;  taken  into  the  sen-ice  of 
Queen  Anne,  37;  attacked  validity  of 
commission  issued  by  Tilney,  53-54; 
allowed  to  play  at  the  Boar's  Head,  194 

Workmen  of  the  Revels  under  special  pro- 
tection of  the  Queen,  51 

Wotton,  Sir  Henry,  Letter  of,  to  Sir  Edmund 
Bacon,  on  arrest  of  some  apprentices  for 
playing,  112-13 

Wylson,  Robert,  in  Earl  of  Leicester's  com- 
pany, 33 

Yonge,  Richard,  Justice  of  Middlesex,  55, 
176 

York,  Duke  of,  patron  of  a  company,  38 

York,  Seditious  use  of  drama  in,  6 

York,  Sir  John,  fined  and  imprisoned  for  a 
play  acted  at  his  house,  113 

York's,  Duke  of,  company,  Patent  to,  63,  232 

Yorkshire,  Earl  of  Shrewsbury  Lord  Lieuten- 
ant of,  15 

Young  Admiral,  by  James  Shirley,  warmly 
commended  by  Herbert,  127 

C.A.N. 


VITA 

Virginia  Crocheron  Gildersleeve  was  born  in  New 
York  City  on  October  3,  1877.  She  received  her  early  edu- 
cation at  private  schools  in  her  native  city,  especially  at  the 
Brearley  School,  where  she  was  prepared  for  college.  En- 
tering Barnard  College,  Columbia  University,  in  the  autumn 
of  1895,  she  proceeded  to  the  degree  of  A.B.  in  June,  1899. 
During  the  year  1899- 1900,  as  Fiske  Graduate  Scholar  in 
Political  Science  at  Columbia  University,  she  pursued  courses 
in  Medieval  History  under  Professor  James  Harvey  Robin- 
son, in  American  History  under  Professor  Herbert  L.  Osgood, 
and  in  Sociology  under  Professor  Franklin  H.  Giddings. 
She  received  the  degree  of  A.M.  in  June,  1900.  For  the 
next  five  years  she  taught  in  the  Department  of  English  in 
Barnard  College,  as  Assistant  and  Tutor.  From  1905  to 
1908  she  devoted  herself  to  graduate  study  under  the  Faculty 
of  Philosophy  in  Columbia  University,  pursuing  courses  in 
English  under  Professor  William  P.  Trent,  Professor  Ashley  H. 
Thorndike,  Professor  George  P.  Krapp,  Professor  William  W. 
Lawrence,  Professor  William  Allan  Neilson,  now  of  Harvard 
University,  and  Professor  John  W.  Cunliffe,  now  of  the 
University  of  Wisconsin ;  in  Old  French  under  Professor 
Henry  A.  Todd  ;  and  in  Comparative  Literature  under  Pro- 
fessor Jefferson  B.  Fletcher. 


I 


*/n    r)iinL 


- 

RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

BldqRSRhEG,0NAL  UBRARY  FAC'L'TY 
BWg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 

University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

1-yeaMoans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

Renewals    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    h  I 

prior  to  due  date  y  made    4    days 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


20,000  (4/94) 

J 


c  i  k&Kl  *>j*  -iv« 


TO  2/rJb 


'.'■vf  ♦ ;: ;•'' 


**l 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


e« 


B00Q*1352bD 


